---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, October 15, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 206

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Texas Suit Remanded to District Court
ACADEMY MORTGAGE: Wins Partial Dismissal of "Stern" Suit
ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE: Discovery Dispute in Castillo Resolved
AMAZON.COM INC: Agrees to Settle Subscription Suit for $2.5BB
ANTERO RESOURCES: Seeks to Amend Remaining Class Cert Deadlines

APOLLOMD BUSINESS: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Odonnell Says
BACKPAGE.COM: Agrees to Settle Sex Trafficking Suit for $215MM
BANK OF AMERICA: Class Certification Granted in "Aldana"
BROADMARK REALTY: Faces Eibling Suit over Merger Deal
CHEDRAUI USA: Exposes Credit, Debit Card Info, Plock Says

CLEANSPARK INC: Court Certifies Class in Hashthantra
CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Ortiz Wins Conditional Status Bid
DAVID SIN: Opposition to Grossman Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 12
EASTERN RADIOLOGISTS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $3.25MM
EI DU PONT: Plaintiffs Seek Rule 23 Class Certification

FASTLY INC: Court Narrows Claims in Kula Suit
FIRSTENERGY CORP: 6th Cir. Vacates Discovery Production Order
GEARY COUNTY: Court Dismisses Municipal Liability Claims in "Lyman"
HAFETZ AND ASSOCIATES: Settlement in Wendelken Gets Initial Nod
HOLLY RIDGE, NC: Class Cert Responses Due Feb. 2, 2026

HOUZZ INC: Faces Evans Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ICF TECHNOLOGY: Mondello Wins Bid for Class Certification
LANDMARK ADMIN: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Suit for $6MM
MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: 5th Cir. Affirms Certification Ruling
MDL 2262: Plaintiffs Seek to File Class Cert Exhibits Under Seal

MERGE TRANSPORTATION: Ruemenapp Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MOTILITY SOFTWARE: Reynicke Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
NATROL LLC: Pending Class Cert Bids in Yamasaki Suit Terminated i
NIKE RETAIL: Bid for Summary Judgment Tossed w/o Prejudice
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Court Extends Class Cert Briefing Sched

OUTSOURCED ASSOCIATES: Discovery to Proceed in "Curry"
PAY-O-MATIC CHECK: Saumders Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Notice
PEPSICO INC: Faces Palmeri Suit Over Mislabeled Potato Snacks
PNC BANK: Lyons Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply Briefs
PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS: Must File Class Cert Opposition by Oct. 17

REGULATORY DATACORP: Class Cert Bid Filing Due May 11, 2026
ROBERT F. KENNEDY: Court Blocks Federal Restrictions on Grants
SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Wins Partial Dismissal of "Bailey" Suit
SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Class Action Over Fare Increase
STAKE CENTER: Bid to Certify Class Referred to Magistrate Judge

SUNFLOWER BANK: Class Action Settlement in Besser Gets Final Nod
SYNGENTA CROP: Patterson Sues Over Exposure to Harmful Chemicals
TERA JACKSON-DAVIS: Kennedy Suit Seeks to Certify Class
TOURMALINE BIO: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Novartis AG
TRAJECTOR MEDICAL: Class Cert Filing Extended to April 13, 2026

TRINITY TEEN: Class Settlement in Sherman Suit Gets Final Nod
UNICOURT INC: Class Certification Order Entered in Trama Suit
UNION PACIFIC: Grigg Wins Class Cert Bid
UNION PACIFIC: Waldschmidt Wins Bid to Certify Class
UNITED BANK: Davis Seeks to Certify ESOP Participant Class

UNITED STATES: Landeros Sues Over Immigration Detention System
XACTUS LLC: Must Oppose Cinner Class Cert Bid by Oct. 17
ZR CONSULTING: Fact Discovery in Mott Due May 15, 2026

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Texas Suit Remanded to District Court
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STATE OF TEXAS, v. 3M
COMPANY; CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; and EIDP, INC.
F/K/A E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, Case No.
3:25-cv-00122-L (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Sam A. Lindsay entered
an order:

-- granting the motion to remand;

-- declining to rule on the DuPont Defendants' motion;

-- declining to rule on 3M's motion; and

-- remanding this action to the 18th Judicial District Court of
    Johnson County, Texas.

The clerk of court shall effect the remand in accordance with the
usual procedure. Further, for the reason previously stated, the
court denies the Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and costs.


The court concludes that the State of Texas is the real party in
interest in this litigation. As a result, the court does not have
jurisdiction over this case pursuant to Section 1332.

Because the court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this
action, it will not address the merits of DuPont Defendants' Motion
and 3M's Motion. Accordingly, the court Memorandum Opinion and
Order declines to address the DuPont Defendants' motion; and
declines to address 3M's Motion.

The Plaintiff contends that for decades Defendants manufactured,
marketed, and sold consumer products containing per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA").
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that Old DuPont began using
PFOA and other PFAS in products like Teflon (TM) and Stainmaster
(TM) in 1951, and it purchased PFOA from 3M.

The State of Texas is seeking monetary relief of $1,000,000 or
more, including civil penalties, attorney's fees, and costs, as
well as non-monetary injunctive relief.

On Jan. 16, 2025, 3M removed this action to "the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, under
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, and, independently and
alternatively, under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a), contending that
there is diversity of citizenship among the real parties in
interest to this suit."

3M operates in the fields of industry, worker safety, and consumer
goods.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept. 24, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CRygrg
at no extra charge.[CC]

ACADEMY MORTGAGE: Wins Partial Dismissal of "Stern" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Lazaro Stern, Celeste Allen, Lisa
Kucherry, Peter Smith, Sharon Thompson, and Charly Bates,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Academy Mortgage Corporation, Defendant, Civil
Action No. 2:24-cv-00015-DBB-DAO (D. Utah), Judge David Barlow of
the United States District Court for the District of Utah granted
in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

On March 21, 2023, Academy discovered that an unauthorized third
party had accessed its computer network, giving the third party
access to approximately 284,443 individuals' personal identifiable
information including names, dates of birth, and Social Security
numbers. The ransomware gang BlackCat/Alphv hacked Academy. On May
14, 2023, BlackCat published a substantial amount of stolen
personal identifiable information on the dark web, including
completed mortgage applications, financial statements, signed
mortgage documents, fingerprints, signatures, driver's licenses,
and passports. Academy publicly announced the data breach on
December 20, 2023, nine months after discovery. This nine-month
delay prevented Plaintiffs and class members from immediately
taking affirmative measures to prevent or mitigate harm.

Plaintiffs Stern, Allen, Kucherry, Smith, and Bates are former
Academy customers; Thompson is a former employee. All received
notice of exposure. These Plaintiffs spent time mitigating identity
theft risk, experienced increased spam calls, and felt anxiety due
to the breach. Smith's credit report shows a loan was fraudulently
taken out in his name on April 21, 2023, one month after the
breach. Bates experienced unauthorized charges on his credit card
and received a call about a fraudulently opened credit card in his
name.

Judge Barlow adopted the majority rule requiring plaintiffs to
allege actual misuse of personal identifiable information traceable
to the breach, such as fraud, identity theft, or posting data on
the dark web. Unauthorized third-party access alone is
insufficient. The court found Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged
actual misuse. BlackCat published the stolen personal identifiable
information on the dark web, which is strong evidence of Article
III injury in fact. Allegations that personal identifiable
information was available for sale on the dark web provide
substantial support for establishing injury in fact. The
publication is akin to disclosure of private information, which the
Supreme Court recognized as a concrete intangible harm.

Smith's identity fraud also constitutes actual misuse. A fraudulent
loan was taken out thirty-one days after the breach using
information from the stolen dataset, establishing a clear temporal
link traceable to the breach. Bates' claim lacks sufficient
allegations regarding how the data enabled the fraudulent charges.
However, actual misuse for Smith and regarding the dark web
publication establishes imminent harm for other Plaintiffs because
actual misuse of a portion of the stolen dataset increases the risk
that other information will be misused. All other Plaintiffs allege
substantial risk of impending harm, lost time mitigating harm, and
emotional harm. Therefore, named Plaintiffs and the putative class
have Article III standing.

Judge Barlow found that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged present
injury for negligence. The personal identifiable information
published on the dark web, Smith's identity fraud, and other
Plaintiffs' mitigation efforts constitute present harms sufficient
to support a negligence claim. Defendant failed to adequately brief
the economic loss rule argument. The court denied dismissal of the
negligence count.

For breach of implied contract, an implied contract plausibly
exists. Academy's Privacy Policy states it is committed to ensuring
information is secure and uses commercially reasonable efforts to
protect personal information from access, loss, misuse, alteration,
or destruction by unauthorized parties. These statements coupled
with the exchange of personal identifiable information plausibly
demonstrate mutual assent to an implied contract. Dismissal was
denied.

For unjust enrichment, Plaintiffs do not allege that Defendant
received some benefit from retaining the personal identifiable
information by selling it to third parties, using it for targeted
marketing, or receiving ongoing benefits. Plaintiffs provided their
personal identifiable information and money or labor in exchange
for mortgage services or employment. They do not allege Defendant
failed to provide these services. The unjust enrichment claim is
dismissed.

For invasion of privacy, Defendant argued no intentional intrusion
occurred, but intentional intrusion is not required for a public
disclosure of private facts claim. Plaintiffs cite the correct
legal standard. Dismissal was denied.

For violation of the California Customer Records Act Section
1798.82, Plaintiffs must allege incremental harm from delayed
notification rather than harm from the breach itself. Plaintiffs
allege Defendant waited nine months to notify them, preventing
timely mitigation. This alleges sufficient incremental harm.
Dismissal was denied.

For violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act, Defendant
argued Plaintiffs merely restated statutory requirements without
factual allegations. Plaintiffs cited multiple complaint paragraphs
with factual assertions. Defendant did not respond or address these
assertions. Defendant also claimed failure to comply with notice
requirements, but Plaintiffs responded that California Consumer
Privacy Act requires written notice thirty days prior to filing.
Notice was provided more than thirty days before the operative
complaint. Defendant did not respond. Dismissal was denied on both
grounds.

For violations of California Unfair Competition Law and Washington
and Idaho Consumer Protection Acts, Defendant argued Plaintiffs
lost no money or property. Plaintiffs responded that lost time is
an economic injury under California law. Defendant did not respond,
and the court considers this conceded. For the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, Plaintiffs allege Smith spent time responding to
fraud and Allen's personal identifiable information lost value when
published on the dark web, constituting property injuries.
Defendant did not respond. For the Idaho Consumer Protection Act,
Plaintiffs allege benefit of the bargain damages constitute
ascertainable loss of money because Defendant failed to
sufficiently fund data security measures. Defendant did not
respond. All dismissals on these counts were denied.

Judge Barlow granted Defendant's motion to dismiss only the unjust
enrichment claim. All other counts survive. This is a class action
certified for purposes of this litigation.

A copy of the Court's decision can be found at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uuN9kn from PacerMonitor.com

ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE: Discovery Dispute in Castillo Resolved
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RINALDYS CASTILLO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE INC., et al., Case No.
1:24-cv-00984-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul Engelmayer
entered an order resolving discovery dispute.

The Court finds that the Defendants have provided sufficient
"disclosures based on extensive, diligent searches." No more
searches to this end need to be undertaken. The Court therefore
denies Castillo's request t compel additional searches of the
Motefiore defendants' systems.

Castillo seeks overtime compensation, unpaid wages, wage statements
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law
(NYLL).

Albert is a medical school located in the Bronx, New York.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TEgT2a at no extra
charge.[CC]

AMAZON.COM INC: Agrees to Settle Subscription Suit for $2.5BB
-------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
secured a $2.5 billion settlement with Amazon.

Why: The FTC alleged Amazon used deceptive methods to enroll
consumers in Prime subscriptions and made it difficult to cancel.

Where: The settlement was filed in Washington federal court. Amazon
agreed to pay $2.5 billion to settle Federal Trade Commission
allegations that the company enrolled millions of consumers in
Prime subscriptions without their consent and made it difficult to
cancel.

The Amazon Prime settlement includes a $1 billion civil penalty and
$1.5 billion in refunds for consumers harmed by the deceptive Prime
enrollment practices.

The FTC alleged Amazon used sophisticated subscription traps to
manipulate consumers into enrolling in Prime and then made it
difficult for consumers to end their subscriptions.

"Today, the Trump-Vance FTC made history and secured a
record-breaking, monumental win for the millions of Americans who
are tired of deceptive subscriptions that feel impossible to
cancel," FTC Chair Andrew N. Ferguson said in a statement.

The FTC alleged Amazon and several executives knowingly misled
millions of consumers into enrolling in Prime, violating the FTC
Act and the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA).

Amazon allegedly created confusing and deceptive user interfaces to
lead consumers to enroll in Prime without their knowledge. The
company allegedly compounded these deceptive enrollment practices
by creating a complex and difficult process for consumers seeking
to cancel their Prime subscriptions.

Amazon documents discovered in the lead up to trial reportedly
showed Amazon executives and employees knowingly discussed these
unlawful enrollment and cancellation issues, with comments like
"subscription driving is a bit of a shady world" and leading
consumers to unwanted subscriptions is "an unspoken cancer."

Amazon Prime settlement requires company to change enrollment
practices

The Amazon Prime settlement includes the largest civil penalty ever
in a case involving an FTC rule violation and the second-highest
restitution award ever obtained by FTC action.

The settlement requires Amazon to stop its unlawful practices and
make meaningful changes to the Prime enrollment and cancellation
flows, including a clear and conspicuous button for customers to
decline Prime.

Amazon must also include clear and conspicuous disclosures about
all material terms of Prime during the enrollment process and
create an easy way for consumers to cancel Prime.

Meanwhile, Amazon is facing a class action lawsuit alleging it
misled customers about their ownership rights to digital content
purchased on Prime Video.

What do you think about the Amazon Prime settlement? Join the
discussion in the comments.

The FTC is represented by Jonathan Cohen, Evan Mendelson, Olivia
Jerjian, Jonathan W. Ware, Sana Chaudhry, Anthony Saunders, Eli
Freedman, Colin D.A. MacDonald, Rachel F. Sifuentes and Jeffrey
Tang.

The Amazon Prime settlement is FTC v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:23-cv-0932-JHC, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington. [GN]

ANTERO RESOURCES: Seeks to Amend Remaining Class Cert Deadlines
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TREVA KIRKBRIDE, as
Trustee of the R and K Trust, on behalf of herself and classes of
similarly situated persons, v. ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION, Case
No. 2:23-cv-03212-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order granting motion to amend the remaining class
certification briefing deadlines set forth in the Court's December
31, 2024 Scheduling Order to accommodate a one-week extension of
existing deadlines in order to allow the Parties additional time to
adequately meet those deadlines.

No other case deadlines will be affected. The Plaintiff consents to
this motion.

Specifically, Antero requests the following amendments to the
Court's December 31, 2024 Scheduling Order:

                     Event                       Deadline

  The Defendant's opposition to the             Oct. 3, 2025
  Plaintiff's class certification motion:

  The Plaintiff's reply in support of its       Oct. 17, 2025
  motion for class certification:

Antero is an American company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept. 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LVBiuQ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel T. Donovan, Esq.
          Ragan Naresh, Esq.
          Holly Trogdon, Esq.
          Saunders McElroy, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 389 5000
          E-mail: daniel.donovan@kirkland.com
                  ragan.naresh@kirkland.com
                  holly.trogdon@kirkland.com
                  saunders.mcelroy@kirkland.com

                - and -

          Timothy B. McGranor, Esq.
          Ilya Batikov, Esq.
          VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
          52 East Gay Street
          Columbus, OH 43216 1008
          Telephone: (614) 464 6400
          E-mail: tbmcgranor@vorys.com
                  ibatikov@vorys.com

APOLLOMD BUSINESS: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Odonnell Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CATHY ODONNELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APOLLOMD BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-05488-SEG (N.D. Ga., September 25, 2025) arises
from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data.

The Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal
identifiable information and protected health information about its
current and former patients, including Plaintiff. But the Defendant
lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its
insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach.

According to the complaint, cybercriminals were able to breach
Defendant's systems because it failed to adequately train its
employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable
security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII/PHI. In
short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class' PII/PHI in a
vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for
cybercriminals, says the suit.

ApolloMD Business Services, LLCis a physician practice management
company based in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue,, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
          980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (872) 263-1100
          Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
          E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
                  raina@straussborrelli.com

BACKPAGE.COM: Agrees to Settle Sex Trafficking Suit for $215MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Top class Actions reports that the online classifieds website
Backpage has agreed to a $215 million settlement to resolve claims
that it facilitated sex trafficking through online advertisements.

The Backpage class action settlement benefits individuals who were
sex trafficking victims and were advertised on Backpage.com between
Jan. 1, 2004, and April 6, 2018, or were advertised on
CityXGuide.com between April 8, 2018, and June 19, 2020.

Backpage.com was an online classifieds website that allowed users
to post advertisements for a variety of services, including sex
work. Backpage was shut down by the U.S. Department of Justice in
2018 after the site's founders were indicted on charges of
conspiracy to facilitate prostitution and money laundering.

Despite the shutdown, Backpage and its successor CityXGuide were
allegedly responsible for billions of dollars in sex trafficking
revenue, according to the federal government. The DOJ seized $215
million from Backpage and CityXGuide, which will be used to fund
the Backpage remission program.

According to a class action lawsuit, Backpage and CityXGuide
knowingly facilitated sex trafficking through online
advertisements. The companies allegedly profited from this illegal
activity while victims suffered financial and emotional damages.

The Backpage class action settlement resolves these allegations and
compensates victims of sex trafficking.

Under the terms of the Backpage remission program, class members
can receive a cash payment for losses related to their trafficking.
These losses can include medical expenses, behavioral health costs,
lost wages and other documented losses. Payments will vary
depending on the amount of losses claimed and the number of
claimants.

The deadline for exclusion and objection was Oct. 26, 2023.

The Backpage settlement received preliminary approval on Aug. 10,
2023.

To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by Feb. 2, 2026.

Who's Eligible

Individuals who were sex trafficking victims and were advertised on
Backpage.com at any time during Jan. 1, 2004, to April 6, 2018, or
were advertised on CityXGuide.com at any time during April 8, 2018,
to June 19, 2020.

Potential Award
TBD

Proof of Purchase
The petition form is available in both English and Spanish.
Petitioners must provide all information requested on the form and
include documentation supporting their losses. Acceptable
documentation may include emails, text messages, screenshots,
advertisements, medical or psychological reports, summaries or
plans, pharmacy records and receipts.

Claim Form

NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline
02/02/2026

Case Name
In re: Backpage.com and CityXGuide.com Remission

Final Hearing
N/A

Settlement Website
BackPageRemission.com

Claims Administrator

   Backpage Remission Remission Administrator
   P.O. Box 2890 Portland, OR 97208-2890
   info@BackpageRemission.com
   888-859-9206

Class Counsel

   N/A

Defense Counsel

   N/A [GN]

BANK OF AMERICA: Class Certification Granted in "Aldana"
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Mynor Villatoro Aldana and Janet Hobson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-00859-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
on October 7, 2025.

The Plaintiffs alleged that during the early months of the COVID-19
pandemic, the Defendant represented it would take COVID-19-related
hardship into consideration when assessing requests for overdraft
and nonsufficient funds fee relief. In reliance on those
representations, Plaintiffs incurred fees rather than taking steps
to avoid them. While the Defendant did provide some relief,
Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant ended its COVID-19 relief
program on August 31, 2020, but continued to promote the program
over a year after it had ended.

The Defendant made pervasive and persistent communications across
numerous media aimed at improving its public image during the
COVID-19 pandemic. These communications included statements on its
website, mobile app, social media accounts, online news articles,
special inserts placed in customers' statements, and tens of
millions of mass emails sent to Bank of America deposit account
customers. The alleged message was the Defendant's promise to
provide additional relief in the form of refunds of nonsufficient
funds fees and overdraft fees for consumer deposit account
customers suffering from economic hardship in the COVID-19
pandemic, based on the customer's needs.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, customers could request up to four
refunds in a twelve-month period. In March 2020, the Defendant
raised this cap to 12 refunds in a 12-month period. When refunds
are requested, the Defendant codes the requests into various
categories. Bank of America associates were instructed to code
refund requests based on COVID-19 hardship as "Hardship," but the
Refund Decision Tool automatically coded any request as
"Relationship" if the customer had used all their hardship
credits.

Plaintiff Hobson is a Bank of America customer who saw the
Defendant's statement advertising the COVID-19 relief program on
the Bank of America mobile app. Plaintiff Aldana is a Bank of
America customer who saw an article quoting a Bank of America
executive offering help to those experiencing hardship due to
COVID-19. Plaintiff Aldana left scheduled payments in place because
he believed that if his account were overdrawn he could call and
get overdraft or nonsufficient funds fees waived or refunded, since
he believed his hardship would qualify. Plaintiff Hobson chose not
to switch banks after seeing the Defendant's representations about
COVID-19 relief.


In supplemental briefing, the Plaintiffs proposed two
state-specific classes:

1. California Class: All Bank of America consumer checking
accountholders in California who, from September 1, 2020 through
June 30, 2022, were charged overdraft fees or insufficient funds
fees after the Defendant promised to consider waiving such fees due
to the pandemic, attempted to seek a refund based on
pandemic-related reasons as evidenced by a refund request reason
code of "Hardship" or "Relationship" in Bank of America's business
records, and did not receive a refund for such fees.

2. New Jersey Class: All Bank of America consumer checking
accountholders in New Jersey who, from September 1, 2020 through
June 30, 2022, were charged overdraft fees or insufficient funds
fees after the Defendant promised to consider waiving such fees due
to the pandemic, attempted to seek a refund based on
pandemic-related reasons as evidenced by a refund request reason
code of "Hardship" or "Relationship" in Bank of America's business
records, and did not receive a refund for such fees.

The Plaintiffs moved for certification for the following causes of
action: unjust enrichment, violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, and violation of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act.

LEGAL STANDARD

Before certifying a class, the trial court must conduct a rigorous
analysis to determine whether the party seeking certification has
met the prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. A
party seeking class certification must affirmatively demonstrate
compliance with the rule and be prepared to prove as much. The
standard a plaintiff must meet to prove compliance with Rule 23 is
a preponderance of the evidence. Rule 23 is satisfied when a party
demonstrates meeting all four prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and one
of three factors enumerated in 23(b).

COURT'S ANALYSIS

The Court examined each element of Rule 23(a). Regarding
numerosity, the requirement is that the class be so numerous that
joinder of all members individually would be impracticable. For
both the California and New Jersey subclasses, the Plaintiffs
contended this requirement is satisfied because the Defendant's
business records evidence thousands of members. The Defendant did
not dispute this. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the
Plaintiffs satisfied the numerosity requirement with respect to
both subclasses.

As to commonality, the Plaintiffs argued that the requirement is
met because the case presents common questions of fact and law
stemming from Bank of America's same conduct, practice, and
procedure relative to all class members. The Defendant did not
dispute this. The Court agreed that the commonality requirement is
met.

On typicality, the purpose of the typicality requirement is to
assure that the interest of the named representative aligns with
the interests of the class. The Defendant argued that Aldana is not
typical because he could not confirm having seen the press release,
the fact sheets, or the paper statement insert and his at-issue
overdraft refund requests occurred two years after the Defendant's
initial announcement and did not mention a COVID-19 hardship when
submitted. The Plaintiffs countered that their case is based on the
Defendant's representations as an entire marketing campaign
inclusive of the materials that Aldana confirmed seeing: a CNBC
article discussing Bank of America's announcement, coverage in
local news, and Facebook posts by the Defendant regarding the
COVID-19 relief program.

After reviewing Aldana's deposition testimony, the Court determined
that Aldana sufficiently claimed that he viewed the alleged
misrepresentations across multiple sources. In the March 18, 2022
phone call, Aldana did express his belief that the refund would be
granted due to the promised COVID-19 relief, stating "I thought
those were waived due to the pandemic. Well, it's in the news. It's
all over the news. I told Bank of America I was waiving that and
late fees and all that."

The Defendant also asserted Hobson could not confirm having seen
the press release, the fact sheets, or the paper statement insert
and is differently situated from class members given her repeated
requests for relief not only during the pandemic but pre-pandemic.
Like Aldana, Hobson viewed the alleged representations in marketing
materials which were among those in the marketing campaign at
issue. She also claims she viewed the statements in the Bank of
America mobile app. That she requested relief before the pandemic
likely means she was even more disposed to need the relief during
the pandemic, not less. In sum, the Court found that, on this
record, the Plaintiffs satisfied the typicality requirement.

Regarding adequacy of representation, the requirement is that the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. This requires inquiry into whether
plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts of interest with
other class members, and will prosecute the action vigorously on
behalf of the class. The Defendant did not dispute this element.
Having carefully reviewed the submissions, the Court found that the
Plaintiffs satisfied this requirement.

RULE 23(b)(3) ANALYSIS

Predominance requires the Court to determine whether questions of
law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members. The Court reviewed the three
claims at issue: unjust enrichment, California's Unfair Competition
Law, and New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act.

For unjust enrichment, to prevail on this claim, plaintiffs must
establish receipt of a benefit and unjust retention of the benefit
at the expense of another. The Plaintiffs can rely on class-wide
proof in arguing the Defendant received a benefit through the fees
it should not have retained. Therefore, the Court found that common
issues predominate as to the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim.

As to California's Unfair Competition Law and New Jersey's Consumer
Fraud Act, the Defendant argued that the putative class members
were exposed to disparate information because the language in the
various communications differed. Even if the language differed
slightly between communications, the message was arguably both
simple and uniform: that relief was available for COVID-19-related
hardship in the form of fee refunds. The class members all received
the same language across the mass emails and statement inserts that
promoted its COVID-19 relief program.

The Defendant also argued that not all members were exposed. The
Plaintiffs identified a suite of materials that were sent directly
to existing customers, in addition to those directed to the public
at large, some of which were sent specifically to market the
COVID-19 relief program. These methods of communication included
statements on the Defendant's website, mobile app, social media
accounts, online news articles, special inserts placed in
customers' statements, and tens of millions of mass emails sent to
Bank of America deposit account customers.

The Ninth Circuit has held that to establish a reliance
presumption, the operative question is whether the defendant so
pervasively disseminated material misrepresentations that all
plaintiffs must have been exposed to them. Because the Defendant
communicated the common message via multiple channels directly to
potential class members in the form of bank statement inserts,
emails, and mobile app messages, the Court found that the
Plaintiffs successfully showed a presumption of reliance should
apply.

Regarding damages, in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, the Supreme Court
held that if plaintiffs cannot establish that damages are capable
of measurement on a classwide basis, plaintiffs cannot show Rule
23(b)(3) predominance. The Ninth Circuit has reaffirmed that damage
calculations alone cannot defeat class certification. The need for
individual damages calculations does not, alone, defeat class
certification.

The Plaintiffs aver, and the Defendant does not dispute, that Bank
of America records include information regarding which customers
requested refunds during the class period, which of those
customers' requests were denied, and how the Defendant categorized
each request. The Plaintiffs proposed two damages models designed
by expert Arthur Olsen: a non-capped model that would identify all
refund requests coded as "Hardship" or "Relationship" that were not
granted by Bank of America for the period of September 1, 2020
through June 30, 2022, and a capped model that would cap refunds at
up to 12 fee refunds in a rolling 12 month period. The Court found
that the Plaintiffs succeeded in meeting their burden to
demonstrate that damages are capable of measurement on a classwide
basis.

For superiority, to certify a class action, it must be superior to
other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
controversy. The proposed class will consist of tens of thousands
of members and the individual recovery will be relatively small.
Because recovery on an individual basis would be dwarfed by the
cost of litigating on an individual basis, this factor weighs in
favor of class certification. Therefore, the Court found the
Plaintiffs sufficiently demonstrated the superiority of this class
action.

The Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The parties are ordered to meet and confer and within twenty-one
days of the issuance of this Order, submit a joint scheduling
proposal for the remainder of this action. The Defendant's motions
to seal documents based upon confidential or proprietary
information are denied for lack of good cause, except that sealing
is granted for materials including a named plaintiff's personal
financial information.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cQ5aRB from PacerMonitor.com

BROADMARK REALTY: Faces Eibling Suit over Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------
Ready Capital Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K/A for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 30, 2025, that its subsidiary is
facing a class action lawsuit, captioned "v. Pyatt, et al.," Case
No. C-24-CV-24-000818, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland.

On June 6, 2024, a purported former stockholder of its subsidiary,
Broadmark Realty Capital Inc., sued its former board of directors
and alleges they breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
the Broadmark merger by failing to properly consider acquisition
proposals that were purportedly superior to the merger, by relying
on purportedly false and misleading valuation analyses, and by
authorizing the issuance of a purportedly false and misleading
proxy statement. It also asserts claims against Broadmark's
financial advisor for aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty and seeks damages in the form of compensatory
damages, quasi-appraisal damages, rescissory damages, and
disgorgement of any merger-related benefits. The action also seeks
reimbursement for litigation expenses and attorneys' and experts'
fees.

On September 13, 2024, the action was assigned to the Business and
Technology Case Management Program of the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, Maryland. Thereafter, on December 10, 2024, the
defendants moved to dismiss the operative complaint. Although the
company is not a defendant in the Action, it is subject to
contractual indemnification obligations (conditioned on the
satisfaction of various contractual requirements) in connection
therewith, including with respect to the defendants' service as
Broadmark directors and provision of services to Broadmark, as
applicable.

Ready Capital Corporation is a multi-strategy real estate finance
company that originates, acquires, finances, and services loans and
are used by businesses to purchase real estate used in their
operations or by investors seeking to acquire multi-family, office,
retail, mixed use or warehouse properties.


CHEDRAUI USA: Exposes Credit, Debit Card Info, Plock Says
---------------------------------------------------------
NORMA PLOCK, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. CHEDRAUI USA, INC., a California
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-02539 (C.D. Cal.,
September 25, 2025) arises from Defendant's violation of the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transactions Act amendment to the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, a federal statute that requires merchants to omit or
mask certain credit card and debit card information on receipts
provided to consumers.

Despite the clear language of the statute, the Defendant knowingly
or recklessly failed to comply with FACTA by printing all 16 digits
of consumers' credit and debit card account numbers on its
receipts. As a result of Defendant's unlawful conduct, the
Plaintiff and the proposed Class, each of whom conducted business
with Defendant during the time frame relevant to this complaint,
suffered a violation of their statutory rights, says the suit.

Moreover, the Defendant's breach of the expectation that it would
keep the cardholder's information secret is similar to the tort of
"breach of confidence." The Defendant's printing of Plaintiff's
entire card account number also resembles the common law tort of
intrusion upon seclusion because a reasonable person would find
such a disclosure highly offensive, the suit alleges.

Chedraui USA, Inc. provides food products including fruits,
vegetables, meats and fish, deli, bakery, groceries, and other
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Deborah De Villa, Esq.  
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  ddevilla@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          Andree Rozados-Quaresima, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          2750 North 29th Avenue, Suite 209A
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Telephone: (954) 589-0588

CLEANSPARK INC: Court Certifies Class in Hashthantra
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARSHAN HASTHANTRA,
Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, v.
CLEANSPARK, INC., et. al, Case No. 1:21-cv-00511-LAP (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Loretta Preska entered an order granting motion for
class certification as follows:

  1. The action is certified as a class action and the Class is
     defined as:

     "All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
     acquired the publicly-traded securities of CleanSpark, Inc.
     between Dec. 10, 2020 and Aug. 16, 2021, both dates
     inclusive."

     Excluded from the Class are persons and entities that
     suffered no compensable losses, as well as: (i) Defendants;
     (ii) current and former officers, employees, and directors of

     CleanSpark, Inc.; (iii) blood relatives and household members

     of any person excluded under (i) or (ii); and (iv) any
     entities affiliated with, controlled by, or more than 10%
     owned by, any person excluded under (i) through (iii); and
     (v) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns
     of any person or entity excluded under (i) through (iv).

  2. Darshan Hasthantra is appointed as Class Representative.

  3. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is appointed as Class Counsel.

Counsel shall confer and inform the Court by letter no later than
Oct. 9, 2025 of how they propose to proceed. The Clerk of Court is
directed to close docket entry 89.

Considering the Defendants have failed to present any evidence
demonstrating a lack of price impact to rebut the presumption of
reliance, Plaintiff is entitled to the presumption of reliance and
have satisfied Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement.
Plaintiff has demonstrated that a class action is the superior
method to adjudicate his claims.

Lead Plaintiff Darshan Hasthantra brings this putative class action
against the Defendants pursuant to section 10(b) of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934.

CleanSpark operates as a bitcoin mining company in the America.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ti7J9k at no extra
charge.[CC]

CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Ortiz Wins Conditional Status Bid
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NASHAILY ORTIZ,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et
al., v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC., et al., Case
No. 1:22-cv-08957-JLR-GS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gary Stein
entered an order:

-- granting the Plaintiff' motion for conditional certification
    of an FLSA collective; and

-- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling of the
    statute of limitations.

The Opposing Defendants do not explain how conditionally certifying
an FLSA collective in this case would "interfere" with either
Richardson or Butskhrikidze, nor does the Court see how it would.2
Thus, this argument likewise presents no valid reason for deferring
a ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have made the "modest
factual showing" required to justify conditional certification of
an FLSA collective. At the same time, however, the Court finds that
the Plaintiffs' definition of the collective is too broad, albeit
perhaps immaterially so.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs' proposed notices provide for notice
to be sent to "all current and former Flaggers and Spotters who
worked for" any of the Defendants from Oct. 26, 2019, to the
present.

Consolidated offers electricity, natural gas, and steam services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lfLuuu at no extra
charge.[CC]

DAVID SIN: Opposition to Grossman Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 12
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH S. GROSSMAN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
DAVID SIN, ANGELO JOHN COLOMA, ANDREW RICKMAN, MAHESH KARANTH,
RICHARD MEIER, and SIN CAPITAL GROUP PTE. LTD., Case No.
2:23-cv-09501-MRA-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Monica Ramirez
Almadani entered an order granting the parties' joint stipulation
requesting the first extension of certain deadlines in the pretrial
scheduling order:

  Deadline for opposition to class               Dec. 12, 2025
  certification motion and opposing
  expert report(s):

  Deadline for class certification reply         Jan. 30, 2026
  and rebuttal expert report(s):

  Hearing on motion for class certification:     Feb. 16, 2026

  Completion of non-expert fact discovery:       March 27, 2026

On Sept. 22, 2025, Lead Plaintiffs and all Defendants filed a joint
stipulation and supporting declaration requesting a first extension
of certain deadlines in the pretrial scheduling order.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mVdZPd at no extra
charge.[CC] 


EASTERN RADIOLOGISTS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $3.25MM
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Marty Stempniak, writing for Radiology Business, reports that a
North Carolina private radiology practice will pay $3.25 million to
settle a class-action lawsuit stemming from a recent cyberattack.

Greenville-based Eastern Radiologists first reported news of the
data breach in March 2024 after an investigation found hackers had
accessed its network. The incident impacted records for upward of
886,000 individuals, with exposed details including Social Security
numbers, insurance information and imaging results.

Patients subsequently filed a class-action lawsuit against the
radiology group the same month, accusing it of failing to protect
private health info. A judge has now granted preliminary approval
for a settlement in the case, with a Dec. 15 hearing slated to
finalize the matter.

"The plaintiffs and defendant do not agree about the legal claims
made in this lawsuit," attorneys noted in a FAQ document published
online to answer individuals' questions about the case. "The
lawsuit has not gone to trial, and the court has not decided in
favor of the plaintiffs or defendant."

Claim Depot first reported news of the settlement on Tuesday,
October 7, noting that impacted individuals are eligible for
payouts of up to $5,000, with a filing deadline of Dec. 1.

Founded in 1954, Eastern Radiologists employs nearly 70 physicians
and is a member of Strategic Radiology, joining the private
practice coalition in August. A spokesman for the organization
could not provide comment on the lawsuit's resolution by late
Wednesday, October 8. However, in the settlement agreement, the
practice denied any wrongdoing.

"Nonetheless, Eastern Radiologists believes that further litigation
would be protracted and expensive, and that it is desirable that
the litigation be fully and finally settled in the manner and upon
the terms and conditions set forth in this settlement agreement,"
the document states. "Eastern Radiologists has considered the
uncertainty and risks inherent in any litigation and determined
that the litigation should be settled in the manner and upon the
terms and conditions set forth in this settlement agreement." [GN]

EI DU PONT: Plaintiffs Seek Rule 23 Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as S. A. BY NEXT FRIEND
SHANTELL ALLEN, et al., v. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, et
al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00359-PPS-AZ (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order:

  1. Certifying the Personal Injury Class under Rule 23(b)(3);

  2. Certifying the Medical Monitoring Class under Rule 23(b)(2);

  3. Alternatively, certifying an Issues Class under Rule
     23(c)(4);

  4. Appointing the Named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;

  5. Appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel under
     Rule 23(g); and

  6. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems
     just and proper.

E.I. was a major American chemical company.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IjKe2f at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric S. Pavlack, Esq.
          Colin E. Flora, Esq.
          PAVLACK LAW, LLC
          50 East 91st Street, Suite 305
          Indianapolis IN 46240
          Telephone: (317) 251-1100
          Facsimile: (317) 252-0352 (fax)
          E-mail: eric@pavlacklawfirm.com
                  colin@pavlacklawfirm.com  

                - and -

          Walter J. Alvarez, Esq.
          Brock Alvarado, Esq.
          Steven J. Alvarez, Esq.
          WALTER J. ALVAREZ, P.C.
          1524 West 96th Avenue
          Crown Point IN 46307

                 - and -

          Gabriel M. Vázquez, Esq.
          Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
          Coral M. Odiot-Rivera, Esq.
          Cristina M. Rodriguez-Torres, Esq.
          Veronica N. Vazquez-Santiago, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK
          1302 Avenida Ponce de León
          San Juan PR  00907-3982
          Telephone: (833) 271-4502
          Facsimile: (646) 843-7603
          E-mail: gvazquez@nsprlaw.com
                  pnapoli@nsprlaw.com
                  codiot@nsprlaw.com
                  crodriguez@nsprlaw.com
                  vvazquez@nsprlaw.com

FASTLY INC: Court Narrows Claims in Kula Suit
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kula v. Fastly, Inc. et al
(RE FASTLY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 4:24-cv-03170-JST
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order granting in
part and denying in part motion to dismiss as follows:

-- denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
    claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) to the extent
    that such claims are premised on Statement 2; and

-- granting, with leave to amend, the Defendants' motion to
    dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims under Section 10(b) and Section

    20(a) to the extent that they are premised on the remaining
    statements challenged in the amended complaint.

The Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within 30 days of the
date this order is filed to cure the deficiencies, to the extent
that the Plaintiffs can do so without contradicting the allegations
in their prior pleadings. A failure to file an amended complaint
will result in dismissal with prejudice of the claims dismissed.

The Court finds that the allegations in the AC, when considered
holistically, raise a strong inference of scienter with respect to
individual Defendants Nightingale and Kisling.

Because the only basis that Defendants have advanced for dismissing
Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claim is that the Plaintiffs failed to
state a predicate claim under Section 10(b), the Court denies the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Section 20(a) claim to the extent
that the claim is predicated on Statement 2, as Plaintiff’s
Section 10(b) claim is not subject to dismissal to the extent that
it is predicated on that statement. The motion to dismiss the
Section 20(a) claim is otherwise granted for the reasons set forth
above in connection with Plaintiffs' claims under Section 10(b).

Because the Court cannot reasonably infer that corrective
disclosures on May 1, 2024, and August 7, 2024, revealed the truth
that Defendants allegedly concealed with respect to Statements 5,
6, 7, and 8, Plaintiffs’ corrective-disclosure loss causation
theory with respect to those statements fails.

The Plaintiffs allege that, beginning on Nov. 15, 2023, and
throughout the Class Period, the Defendants misled investors about
the customer pullback and macroeconomic impacts that Fastly was
experiencing.

The action was filed on May 24, 2024, by Plaintiff Ken Kula. On
Aug. 22, 2024, the Court appointed Olger Guri as Lead Plaintiff and
ordered that filings in this action bear the caption In re Fastly,
Inc. Securities Litigation.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a proposed class of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Fastly securities
between Nov. 15, 2023, and Aug. 7, 2024 ("Class Period").

Fastly provides content delivery network services, image
optimization, and load balancing services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vELL9g at no extra
charge.[CC]

FIRSTENERGY CORP: 6th Cir. Vacates Discovery Production Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as IN RE: FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION,
Petitioner, No. 24-3654, Chief Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton,
Circuit Judge Alice Batchelder, and Circuit Judge Raymond
Nalbandian of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit granted the petition for a writ of mandamus and vacated the
district court's production order. The Court found that FirstEnergy
Corporation's internal investigation materials were protected by
the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine.

FirstEnergy Corporation undertook two internal investigations after
the federal government brought charges against former Ohio House
Speaker Larry Householder, because the charges implicated
FirstEnergy in a bribery scheme related to the passage of Ohio
House Bill 6. Soon after, shareholders sued FirstEnergy in a
securities class action and sought the fruits of those
investigations during discovery. The district court ordered their
production, prompting FirstEnergy's petition for a writ of
mandamus.

In late 2016, FirstEnergy, an Ohio-based public utility company,
faced financial headwinds due to two failing nuclear plants that
its subsidiary owned. To solve the problem, FirstEnergy allegedly
engaged in a bribery scheme with Larry Householder, then a member
of the Ohio House of Representatives. FirstEnergy allegedly
contributed millions of dollars to Householder's campaign funds
through a network of fundraising groups, and Householder threw
himself behind the passage of House Bill 6, a piece of legislation
that promised FirstEnergy a $1.3 billion bailout and a fixed
revenue stream of $100 million annually, all at ratepayers'
expense.

Matters took a turn in July 2020, when the federal government
released a criminal complaint charging Householder with violating
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and, in
connection with the complaint, issued subpoenas to FirstEnergy. The
complaint described how an unnamed company, understood to be
FirstEnergy, and its executives contributed millions to the
campaign funds of Ohio politicians to ensure House Bill 6's
passage. The day after the complaint became public, FirstEnergy's
stock price dropped by 45 percent.

Within a week, FirstEnergy and an independent committee of its
board retained separate outside counsel to conduct internal
investigations. The board hired Squire Patton Boggs LLP to
investigate the allegations in the Householder complaint.
FirstEnergy hired Jones Day to investigate the allegations and to
advise the company about how to handle the subpoenas.

The Householder complaint and FirstEnergy subpoenas generated an
assortment of legal and regulatory actions against FirstEnergy.
Within weeks, various state and federal regulators, the Securities
and Exchange Commission, the Ohio Attorney General, and the Public
Utilities Commission of Ohio, initiated investigations against
FirstEnergy. By that time, FirstEnergy and various directors and
officers faced eight civil lawsuits asserting securities and RICO
claims.

Two shareholders filed securities class actions against FirstEnergy
on behalf of all people and entities that bought FirstEnergy stock
during the alleged bribery scheme. They claimed that FirstEnergy
and several executives defrauded FirstEnergy investors in violation
of federal securities laws.

During discovery, the claimants sought complete access to the
fruits of the Squire and Jones Day investigations, moving to compel
the production of all previously withheld documents related to both
investigations. They also demanded that the district court order
FirstEnergy's witnesses to answer all questions, past and future,
related to the internal investigations. FirstEnergy opposed the
motion.

A special master recommended that the court grant the claimants'
motion and ordered FirstEnergy to produce all previously withheld
documents related to both investigations. The district court
accepted the special master's recommendation, and the court denied
FirstEnergy's motion to certify the order for interlocutory review.
FirstEnergy filed a petition for mandamus relief with this court
and requested a stay of the district court's order. The Court
granted the stay.

The Court found that the attorney-client privilege is the oldest of
the privileges for confidential communications known to the common
law. It represents a sturdy exception to the common-law maxim that
the public has a right to every man's evidence. The privilege
applies to confidential communications between a lawyer and his
client arising from the client's request for legal advice.

As with Upjohn, FirstEnergy and its board hired lawyers to secure
legal advice through internal investigations into the company's
potential criminal and civil wrongdoing. As soon as the Department
of Justice arrested Householder, unsealed his criminal complaint,
and issued criminal subpoenas to FirstEnergy, FirstEnergy retained
Jones Day to investigate the allegations in the Householder
complaint and advise the company on its response to the Justice
Department's criminal investigation. FirstEnergy's board held
several meetings to discuss the company's response to the Justice
Department's criminal investigation and litigation filed against
FirstEnergy. That is when it decided to enlist Squire to conduct an
internal investigation into the allegations about Householder's
scheme with the company.

Squire attorneys met frequently with directors overseeing the
investigation to discuss Squire's investigative findings, legal
analyses, and assessments of potential criminal and civil
liability. Another director confirmed that the Squire lawyers
provided legal updates on their investigative findings. Jones Day
likewise conducted its investigation and examined carefully the
relevant FirstEnergy Corp. records in connection with serving as
counsel for FirstEnergy Corp. and responding to the Department of
Justice investigation.

The work-product doctrine also covered FirstEnergy's internal
investigations. The work-product doctrine applies to documents
prepared in anticipation of litigation. The protection ensures that
an attorney may assemble information, sift the relevant from the
irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan his strategy
without undue and needless interference. Work-product protection
applies if the company or counsel created the documents because of
a party's reasonable anticipation of litigation, as opposed to its
ordinary business purposes.

After the Justice Department unsealed the Householder complaint,
FirstEnergy and its board anticipated that the company would face
government investigations, civil litigation, and regulatory
proceedings. In the aftermath of the 45 percent decline in
FirstEnergy stock a day later, they anticipated even more legal
action in the form of federal securities law claims. Those
expectations prompted the internal investigations. Even the
claimants acknowledged to the district court that obviously no
internal investigations would have taken place but for the
Department of Justice investigation.

Within weeks, FirstEnergy directors and officers faced eight
shareholder lawsuits, as well as multiple investigations into
FirstEnergy by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Ohio
Attorney General, and the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.

The district court reasoned that FirstEnergy initiated the
investigations for business advice, not legal advice, based on its
observation that FirstEnergy later used the fruits of the
investigations for business decisions. But what matters under the
attorney-client privilege is whether a company seeks legal advice,
not what it later does with that advice. Over and over, FirstEnergy
showed that it primarily sought and received legal advice from its
attorneys throughout the investigations.

FirstEnergy had no other adequate means to attain the relief it
desired. The company could have asked the district court to certify
the privilege and work-product questions for interlocutory appeal,
but FirstEnergy did just that, and the district court denied the
request.

Next, it could have defied the district court's order, potentially
prompting a criminal contempt citation, which it may then
immediately appeal. But a district court may choose either civil or
criminal sanctions in its discretion. Last of all, it could have
waited to appeal the district court's order until a final judgment.
But this path would require FirstEnergy to produce its
investigative materials, at which point, damage to the
attorney-client relationship will have already been done by the
disclosure itself.

The district court's error must be clear and beyond the bounds of
its discretion. The district court plainly crossed that line when
it departed from strong and longstanding privilege and work-product
doctrines. Granting the writ also is appropriate under the
circumstances. FirstEnergy understandably and wisely sought counsel
and generated work-product documents in the course of defending
itself against an imposing assortment of civil, regulatory, and
criminal investigations and lawsuits. If FirstEnergy releases its
investigative materials to the claimants in this case, it likely
will be forced to do the same in other cases, and nothing in the
district court's order suggests otherwise.

Beyond FirstEnergy, the district court's order promises substantial
uncertainty for corporations more broadly, as over forty amici have
argued in this case. That is because there is no way to affirm the
district court's ruling without abandoning nearly a half century,
since Upjohn, of jurisprudence concerning the scope of the
attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine, or without
discouraging full and frank communication between companies and
their attorneys when investigating their own wrongdoing. Because
predictable and certain privilege and work-product standards are
essential for FirstEnergy and future litigants facing perilous
litigation consequences, mandamus relief is eminently appropriate
here.

The Court granted the petition for mandamus and vacated the
district court's document production order.

A copy of the Sixth Circuit's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ASYK6c from PacerMonitor.com

GEARY COUNTY: Court Dismisses Municipal Liability Claims in "Lyman"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Christopher Dale Lyman and Tamarisk
Thompson, individually and on behalf of their minor children, E.L.
and M.L., Plaintiffs, v. The Board of County Commissioners of the
County of Geary County, Kansas, Detective Cory Odell, Dr. Terra
Frazier, Dr. Erik Mitchell, and the City of Junction City,
Defendants, Case No. 25-2023-EFM (D. Kan.), Judge Eric F. Melgren
of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas
granted Junction City's motion to dismiss, granted in part and
denied in part Dr. Frazier's motion to dismiss, construed Geary
County's motion as a motion to dismiss and granted it, construed
Detective Odell's motion as a motion to dismiss and granted it, and
granted in part and denied in part Dr. Mitchell's motion to
dismiss.

Plaintiffs filed this suit on January 17, 2025, asserting 13 Counts
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging various constitutional
violations. The suit seeks damages for constitutional violations
stemming from the investigation into and prosecutions for the death
of J.S., Mr. Lyman and Ms. Thompson's infant nephew. Defendants are
Junction City Police Department Detective Cory Odell, JCPD medical
investigator Dr. Terra Frazier, Geary County Coroner and
Pathologist Dr. Erik Mitchell, the City of Junction City, and the
Board of County Commissioners of Geary County.

This case arises out of the exceedingly sad circumstances related
to J.S.'s untimely death. J.S. was the infant nephew of the
then-married Mr. Lyman and Ms. Thompson and the son of Ms.
Thompson's sister. J.S.'s development in utero was complicated by
infection and his mother's involvement in two serious accidents.
After his birth, J.S. suffered several health complications and was
hospitalized on numerous occasions.

In the early morning hours of September 15, 2013, Mr. Lyman found
J.S. pale, cold, and limp. Recognizing that something was wrong,
Mr. Lyman performed CPR on J.S. Ms. Thompson then rushed J.S. to
the Geary County Hospital. GCH staff informed Mr. Lyman and Ms.
Thompson that they believed J.S. had suffered from interrupted
SIDS, and that he would receive better treatment at Children's
Mercy Hospital in Kansas City. Arrangements were made for J.S. to
be transported via life flight to CMH.

While Mr. Lyman was dropping Ms. Thompson off at the airport, GCH
called JCPD to report possible child abuse. Detective Odell served
as JCPD's detective for crimes against children and took over the
investigation regarding J.S. Detective Odell previously worked with
Dr. Frazier, who led a child abuse team at CMH, and delegated the
investigation of J.S.'s child abuse to Dr. Frazier. Throughout the
entire investigation, Detective Odell and Dr. Frazier frequently
communicated, with Dr. Frazier acting as Detective Odell's medical
investigator.

Shortly after J.S. arrived to CMH, Dr. Frazier evaluated J.S. and
concluded that J.S. had been abused. Dr. Frazier reported to
Detective Odell that J.S. had bruising and tearing to his anus,
bruising to both cheeks, nose, forehead, tearing inside his mouth
on both top and bottom gums, a scab at back of his head with
missing hair, bleeding around his brain, and bruising to his chest,
abdomen, lower back, and buttocks. These findings are not supported
by, and are inconsistent with, the GCH emergency department's
intake records and the initial responding JCPD officer's
documentation.

Based upon Dr. Frazier's findings, Detective Odell placed a Be On
the Lookout alert through the Kansas Bureau of Investigations for
Mr. Lyman and Ms. Thompson. Mr. Lyman was interrogated by Detective
Odell. Based upon Dr. Frazier's report, Detective Odell arrested
Mr. Lyman for child abuse and aggravated battery. Detective Odell
ordered E.L., who was at a babysitter's, to be taken into custody
as a child in need of care.

In the early morning hours of September 17, 2013, J.S. was
pronounced dead. Detective Odell arrested Ms. Thompson for the
murder of J.S. He did this so that she would not testify to the
exonerating evidence she had provided and in hopes of coercing her
to testify against Mr. Lyman.

Dr. Mitchell, the Deputy District Coroner and the Pathologist for
Geary County and its Coroner's office, examined J.S. after his
death on two occasions: September 17 and 19, 2013. On September 17,
Dr. Mitchell found no rectal tear is defined and opined that J.S.'s
cause of death was head trauma. Detective Odell feared that there
was not enough evidence to persuade a jury to convict Mr. Lyman, so
he pressured Dr. Mitchell to find that J.S. suffered anal tears.
With this changed opinion, Mr. Lyman was charged with using Ms.
Thompson's sex toys to sexually abuse J.S.

On May 14, 2015, Mr. Lyman was convicted of murder in the first
degree, child abuse, and aggravated battery. He was sentenced to
life in prison with the possibility of parole. On January 17, 2023,
Geary County District Court Judge Courtney Boehm vacated and set
aside the judgment against Mr. Lyman and granted him a new trial.
In that order, the Court found that the prosecution suppressed
evidence that was favorable to Mr. Lyman in violation of Brady v.
Maryland. On July 12, 2023, Geary County dismissed the charges
against Mr. Lyman, and he was freed.

The Court applied Kansas's two-year statute of limitations to this
action. Ms. Thompson's claims stem from her unjust arrest,
detention, prosecution, and the loss of custody of her children.
Her children were returned to her on August 3, 2015, and the
charges filed against her were dismissed on September 8, 2015.
Plaintiffs, including Ms. Thompson, filed this case on January 17,
2025. Because 2025 is more than two years after 2015, Defendants
assert that the statute of limitations bars Ms. Thompson's claims.

Ms. Thompson invoked the doctrines of equitable tolling and
equitable estoppel to save her claims. She asserted that she
delayed filing suit because she remained in fear that she would be
re-prosecuted, and her sons abducted again if she spoke out about
the injustice she suffered. The Court found Ms. Thompson pleads no
facts to demonstrate that she had been pursuing her rights
diligently prior to filing this suit in 2025. Accordingly, she is
not entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations.
The Court dismissed Ms. Thompson's claims against Detective Odell,
Dr. Frazier and Dr. Mitchell.

The Court addressed multiple claims brought by Mr. Lyman and the
minor children E.L. and M.L. against the individual defendants.
Regarding Count II, the conspiracy to fabricate evidence claim, the
Court found Plaintiffs have pled facts sufficient to plausibly
allege that Dr. Mitchell conspired to deprive Mr. Lyman of his
constitutional rights by fabricating evidence, and the Court denied
Dr. Mitchell's motion to dismiss the claim against him in Count
II.

Regarding Count III alleging Brady violations, the Court found
Plaintiffs' Brady claims against Dr. Frazier survive the motion to
dismiss. However, the Court concluded that Dr. Mitchell is entitled
to qualified immunity on this claim and the allegations against Dr.
Mitchell in Count III are dismissed.

The Court dismissed E.L. and M.L.'s fabrication of evidence claims
in Count VIII because E.L. and M.L. were not charged, convicted, or
sentenced, they cannot meet the fourth element of this claim. The
corresponding conspiracy claim in Count IX was also dismissed.

Plaintiffs sought to hold both Junction City and Geary County
liable under Monell claims. The Court found Plaintiffs fail to
plead facts showing that Junction City had a policy or custom
through any of the forms they assert. Plaintiffs have not
sufficiently pled the first element to their Monell claims against
Junction City. Therefore, Counts VII and XI are dismissed against
Junction City.

Similarly, Plaintiffs fail to allege facts to support their claim
that Geary County maintained an informal policy or custom through
widespread practice, failure-to-train, or ratification that led to
Dr. Mitchell's violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.
Therefore, Counts VII and XI are dismissed against Geary County.

After the Court's analysis, the claims remaining against Detective
Odell are Mr. Lyman's Counts I-VI and E.L. and M.L.'s Counts
VIII-XII. The claims remaining against Dr. Frazier are Mr. Lyman's
Counts I-VI and E.L. and M.L.'s Counts XI and XII. The claims
remaining against Dr. Mitchell are Mr. Lyman's Counts I, II, and
IV. The Court dismisses all claims against the Municipal
Defendants. The Court finds that Ms. Thompson's claims as barred by
the statute of limitations.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2qNpkp from PacerMonitor.com

HAFETZ AND ASSOCIATES: Settlement in Wendelken Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EUGENE WENDELKEN, on
behalf of himself individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. HAFETZ AND ASSOCIATES LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-07755-RMB-AMD (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Renee Marie Bumb
entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action
settlement

  1. The Court grants preliminary approval of the settlement
     agreement and all of the terms and conditions contained
     therein.

  2. The Court preliminarily certifies, for settlement purposes
     only, the Class defined in the Settlement Agreement as
     follows:

     "All individuals residing in the United States whose PII was
     compromised in the Data Breach discovered by Hafetz and
     Associates LLC in October 2023, including the approximately
     31,590 individuals identified on the Settlement Class List
     who were sent notice that their personal information may have

     been involved in the Data Incident."

     Excluded from the Class are: (1) the judges presiding over
     this Litigation, and members of their direct families; (2)
     the Defendant, their subsidiaries, parent companies,
     successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the
     Defendant or their parents have a controlling interest, and
     their current or former officers and directors; and (3)
     Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Request for
     Exclusion prior to the Opt-Out Deadline.

  3. The Court appoints Eugene Wendelken as the Class
     Representative for the Class.


  4. Settlement Class Members who wish to opt out and exclude
     themselves from the Class may do so by notifying the
     Settlement Administrator in writing, postmarked no later than

     Dec. 23, 2025.

  5. The Court will hold a final approval hearing on Feb. 25, 2026

     at 11:00 AM.

Hafetz specializes in employee benefits, medicare, and worksite
products, life and disability products for individuals and employer
groups.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lfpN1c at no extra
charge.[CC]

HOLLY RIDGE, NC: Class Cert Responses Due Feb. 2, 2026
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIANA PAULL, et al., V.
THE TOWN OF HOLLY RIDGE, et al., Case No. 7:23-cv-01625-M-RJ
(E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. entered an order
granting extension of the case deadlines:

  1. Responses to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
     and Daubert motions related to class certification shall be
     filed by no later than Feb. 2, 2026, and any replies shall be

     filed by no later than Feb. 23, 2026; and

  2. The parties shall hold a planning conference and file a
     proposed plan to address deadlines for discovery and motions
     regarding merits issues no later than 14 days after the court

     rules on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Provisions of the court's prior scheduling order not altered herein
remain in effect.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HrzPFk at no extra
charge.[CC] 


HOUZZ INC: Faces Evans Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
DANTE EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOUZZ, INC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-07644-JGK (S.D.N.Y., September 16, 2025) is a civil action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate the Defendant's website, www.houzz.com, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights
Law.

The Plaintiff was injured when attempting to access Defendant's
website initially on July 15, 2025, and subsequently on July 20,
2025, from his home in Bronx County, to search for and purchase
Defendant's furniture and lighting products. Despite repeated
efforts, the Plaintiff was unable to navigate key portions of the
site, including product categories, checkout forms, professional
profiles, and interactive planning tools. These barriers obstructed
his ability to complete purchases and engage in services
independently, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks a 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 consumers.

Houzz, Inc. operates the website that offers products and services
related to home remodeling and design.[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

ICF TECHNOLOGY: Mondello Wins Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER MONDELLO, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ICF
TECHNOLOGY, INC., ACCRETIVE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC., Case No.
8:24-cv-01037-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Flynn entered an
order as follows:

  (1) The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted.

  (2) Under Rule 23(g), McOmber McOmber & Luber. P.C. is appointed

      as counsel for the class.

  (3) The Plaintiff Jennifer Mondello is appointed as class
      representative.

  (4) The Court certifies the following class:

      "All persons who, at any time from April 30, 2019 continuing

      through entry of judgment in this case, worked as Performers

      for ICF Technology, Inc. and/or Accretive Technology Group,
      Inc. in Florida."

  (5) Within 14 days of this Order, Defendants shall produce to
      the Plaintiff's counsel a list, in an accurate computer-
      readable data file, containing information necessary to
      facilitate class notice, including the names, last known
      mailing addresses, dates of employment, phone numbers, and
      email addresses of all persons who worked as Performers for
      ICF Technology, Inc. and/or Accretive Technology Group, Inc.

      in Florida at any time since April 30, 2019.

  (6) The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the
      method, timing, and content of class notice to putative
      class members and submit the agreed-upon proposed forms
      regarding the same to the Court for approval within 21 days
      of entry of this Order.

  (7) The class may pursue the following claims in the Amended
      Complaint: Violation of the Florida Minimum Wage Act, Fla.
      Stat. section 448.110, and Article X, Section 24 of the
      Florida Constitution, as detailed in Count II of the Amended

      Complaint.

ICF operates social media platforms for adult content.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rRg6gY at no extra
charge.[CC]

LANDMARK ADMIN: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Suit for $6MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top class Actions reports that multiple insurance companies and
their third-party administrator, Landmark Admin, agreed to a $6
million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that they
failed to prevent a 2024 data breach that compromised sensitive
information. The insurance companies include:

  -- American Benefit Life Insurance Company
  -- American Monumental Life Insurance Company
  -- Capitol Life Insurance Company
  -- Liberty Bankers Life Insurance Company
  -- Accendo Insurance Company

The Landmark settlement benefits individuals whose private
information was potentially compromised in the data breach that
occurred between May 13 and June 17, 2024.

According to the Landmark data breach class action lawsuit, the
defendants failed to prevent a cyberattack that compromised
sensitive information, such as names, Social Security numbers,
financial account information and health insurance data. Plaintiffs
in the case claim that Landmark and the defendant insurance
companies could have prevented the breach by implementing
reasonable cybersecurity measures.

Landmark Admin is a third-party administrator that provides
insurance and retirement plan services.

Landmark Admin has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $6
million settlement to resolve the data breach class action
lawsuit.

Under the terms of the Landmark settlement, class members can
receive reimbursement for documented losses or a one-time cash
payment.

Class members who experienced unreimbursed monetary losses stemming
from fraud or identity theft related to the data breach can receive
up to $2,500 in compensation. Class members must provide
documentation of these losses to receive reimbursement.

Class members who did not experience documented losses can receive
a flat payment of $30. Depending on the number and value of claims
filed with the settlement, this payment may be reduced on a pro
rata basis.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is Nov. 25, 2025.

The final approval hearing for the Landmark data breach settlement
is scheduled for Jan. 29, 2026.

To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by Dec. 26, 2025.

Who's Eligible
Individuals whose private information was potentially compromised
in the Landmark Admin data breach that occurred between May 13 and
June 17, 2024, including those who received a notification letter
about the incident.

Potential Award
Up to $2,500 for documented losses or a $30 cash payment.

Proof of Purchase
Documentation of losses, such as bank statements, credit reports,
police reports, etc.

Claim Form

NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline
12/26/2025

Case Name
Newson, et al. v. Landmark Admin LLC, et al., Case No. DC-25-07674,
in the District Court for Dallas County, Texas

Final Hearing
01/29/2026

Settlement Website
LandmarkDataSettlement.com

Claims Administrator

   Landmark Settlement Administrator
   P.O. Box 1591
   Baton Rouge, LA 70821
   info@LandmarkDataSettlement.com
   (855) 592-5777

Class Counsel

   Gary M. Klinger
   MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC

   Tyler J. Bean
   SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP

   A. Brooke Murphy
   MURPHY LAW FIRM

Defense Counsel

   David M. Ross
   WILSON ELSER LLP

   William "Pat" Huttenbach
   Melinda M. Riseden
   CRAIN CATON & JAMES

   Donald M. Houser
   ALSTON & BIRD LLP [GN]

MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: 5th Cir. Affirms Certification Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Nova Scotia Health Employees' Pension
Plan, Movant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. McDermott International,
Incorporated; David Dickson; Stuart Spence,
Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, Case No. 24-20326 (5th
Cir.), Circuit Judge Jacques L. Wiener, Jr. of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district
court's order partially granting and partially denying class
certification in a Section 10(b) securities fraud class action.

This appeal arose from an interlocutory order partially granting
and partially denying class certification and the procedural
posture from which that order arose. The Plaintiff-Appellant Nova
Scotia Health Employees' Pension Plan (NSHEPP) appealed the
classification order, contesting the district court's ability to
withdraw its first order denying certification and to issue the one
that is the subject of this appeal. NSHEPP also appealed various
findings in the certification order. The Defendants McDermott
International (McDermott), David Dickson, and Stuart Spence
cross-appealed the district court's holding on standing and that
court's other holdings in connection with its partial grant of
class certification.

This is a Section 10(b) securities fraud class action filed
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) on
behalf of purchasers of McDermott common stock. NSHEPP is the lead
plaintiff and its counsel is Pomerantz LLP (Pomerantz). The
Defendants are McDermott, its former CEO David Dickson, and its
former CFO Stuart Spence.

The underlying fraud allegations concern the 2018 merger between
McDermott, an upstream offshore development company, and Chicago
Bridge & Iron Company (CB&I), a downstream engineering and
construction company. After merging, CB&I ceased to exist and
became a part of the new McDermott entity. CB&I stockholders
received 0.82407 shares of McDermott stock in exchange for every
one share of CB&I stock they held pre-merger. Pre-existing
McDermott stockholders became the owners of about 53% of the new
entity and former CB&I stockholders became the owners of about
47%.

At the time of the merger, NSHEPP held 30,400 shares of CB&I common
stock in its portfolio, which were converted into 25,051 shares of
McDermott stock on the merger's completion. NSHEPP did not purchase
McDermott stock on the open market or otherwise, acquiring all of
its McDermott shares in this single exchange transaction.

The merger was announced on December 18, 2017, with due diligence
occurring in the leadup and following that announcement. The merger
closed on May 10, 2018, and McDermott reported quarterly loss after
quarterly loss until it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on January
21, 2020. Between the date of the merger announcement and September
2019, McDermott stock plummeted by 92.5%, wiping out essentially
all value for NSHEPP and other McDermott stockholders.

NSHEPP filed its motion for class certification pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(b)(3), seeking certification of all persons and entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of McDermott
International, Inc. (NYSE: MDR) between December 18, 2017, and
January 23, 2020, both dates inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies
against McDermott and certain of its officers and directors for
violations of the federal securities laws under Exchange Act
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and SEC Rule 10b-5.

On February 29, 2024, the magistrate judge issued his memorandum
and recommendation (MR-1), which denied the motion to certify the
class, without prejudice to refile, because he identified a
fundamental conflict between class members who purchased McDermott
stock on the open market (purchasers) and class members, like
NSHEPP, who only obtained McDermott stock because they held CB&I
stock that was converted in the merger (exchangers). The conflict
exists because the fraud NSHEPP itself alleges could have inured to
the exchangers' benefit. The magistrate judge proposed dividing the
class into two subclasses: One for exchangers and one for
purchasers.

On March 23, 2024, the district court adopted MR-1 with only small
modifications (OR-1). On April 8, 2024, NSHEPP filed a timely Rule
23(f) petition, seeking appellate review of the class certification
denial in OR-1.

On April 24, the district judge withdrew his order (OR-1) because
the magistrate judge had informed the court that he would like to
revise his February 29, 2024 memorandum and recommendation to
address some issues that became apparent following his most recent
conference with the parties. That same day, the magistrate judge
issued his revised memorandum and recommendations (MR-2). The
district court adopted MR-2 on June 21 with minor modifications

MR-2 maintained the fundamental conflict holding but concluded that
enough existed in the record to support NSHEPP's adequacy to
represent the exchanger subclass. Because NSHEPP is inadequate to
represent the purchaser subclass, a purchaser lead plaintiff and
purchaser lead counsel would have to be appointed, even though MR-2
provided that any class members who are both purchasers and
exchangers will hold claims in both classes. After the district
court adopted MR-2, the Court of Appeals denied the Rule 23(f)
petition that NSHEPP had filed, contesting OR-1/MR-1. NSHEPP then
timely filed the instant appeal in the form of a new Rule 23(f)
petition, and the court granted permission to proceed.

NSHEPP's first issue on appeal concerned the district court's
jurisdiction to modify its order because that modification occurred
after NSHEPP filed its first Rule 23(f) petition (appealing OR-1).
The Court reviewed a district court's legal determination that it
possessed subject matter jurisdiction de novo. The Court stated
that unlike the filing of a notice of appeal on final judgment,
which divests a district court of jurisdiction over the case, the
filing of a Rule 23(f) petition is functionally a request for
permission to appeal. The Court held that as long as a district
court has jurisdiction over the case, then it possesses the
inherent procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an
interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be sufficient.

Accordingly, a district court does not lose jurisdiction over a
case when a party files a Rule 23(f) petition, but rather on the
court's grant of the petition, which allows the appeal to proceed.
The district court had jurisdiction to rescind OR-1 because, when
it rescinded the order, the Court of Appeals had not yet ruled on
the Rule 23(f) petition.

The Court held that the district court did not err when it modified
its certification order.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) permits a district court to
reconsider and reverse interlocutory orders for any reason it deems
sufficient, even in the absence of new evidence or an intervening
change in or clarification of the substantive law. Binding caselaw
permits, and Rule 23 itself contemplates, modifications to
class-certification orders.

The Defendants maintained that NSHEPP suffered no injury-in-fact
because, as an exchanger, they only benefited and were not harmed
when their CB&I stock was converted into McDermott stock.

The district court acknowledged that it is too early to say whether
former CB&I shareholders derived a net economic benefit from the
alleged fraud, and that nobody has quantified the inflationary
effect on CB&I stock. Because the inflationary relationship between
McDermott stock and CB&I stock is an open question, it is possible
that exchangers like NSHEPP can show they suffered an economic
injury. Without evidence of that respective inflation, and with
NSHEPP's pleading a plausible theory of economic harm, the Court
agreed that NSHEPP has standing.

NSHEPP asserted that the court erred when it determined that a
fundamental conflict exists between exchangers and purchasers. The
Court reviewed the district court's holding on the fundamental
conflict for abuse of discretion. The magistrate judge found a
fundamental intraclass conflict because it is possible that CB&I's
stock was more inflated than McDermott's stock, and that former
CB&I shareholders derived a net economic benefit from exchanging
their shares. The magistrate judge reasoned that this conflict
between exchangers and purchasers was fundamental because the
inflationary effect of the alleged fraud on CB&I's stock simply
does not concern purchasers of McDermott stock.

The Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion
when it found a fundamental conflict between purchasers and
exchangers. The magistrate judge reasoned that this issue of
comparative inflation would only impact exchangers because
purchasers do not have any reason to care about the CB&I stock
inflation, and NSHEPP's exchanger role will require it to spend a
lot of time briefing and arguing issues related to CB&I inflation
that would do little to nothing to vindicate the interests of
purchasers.[1]

The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its
discretion when it determined, based on the evidence before it,
that subclassing was the most appropriate path to resolve the
conflict it identified. Rule 23 expressly permits subclassing, and
cases in this circuit have considered subclassing an appropriate
way to resolve a fundamental conflict.

The Defendants maintained that the fundamental conflict multiplies
if the court allows class members who are both exchangers and
purchasers to hold claims in both classes. The Court disagreed,
holding that the conflict analysis is part of the adequacy element
of a class action, and adequacy concerns the class representative,
not every single unnamed class member. The Court explained that
each subclass must be homogeneous, in the sense that every member
of the subclass wants the same relief. Having unnamed class members
hold claims in both the exchanger and purchaser subclasses does not
implicate, let alone multiply, any conflict.

The Defendants insisted that NSHEPP cannot appeal findings that are
irrelevant to the certification decision. The Court held that the
methods a court employs in its management of the lead plaintiff
process, including its decision to open or re-open the selection
process, are case management decisions and therefore not proper
subjects for Rule 23(f) review. Under Rule 23(f), the Court may
only consider Rule 23's certification requirements and findings
made in connection with those requirements.

A copy of the Court's decision dated October 3, 2025, is available
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qVnMfg from PacerMonitor.com.

MDL 2262: Plaintiffs Seek to File Class Cert Exhibits Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: Libor-Based Financial Instruments
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:11-md-02262 (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting permission to
file under seal:

  (1) the memorandum of law, declaration, and exhibits submitted
      in support of OTC Plaintiffs' motion for class certification

      as to Defendants Credit Suisse AG, The Royal Bank of
      Scotland Group plc, Royal Bank of Scotland plc (together
      with The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, RBS), and UBS AG
      (UBS); and

  (2) the memorandum of law, declaration, and exhibits submitted
      in support of Plaintiffs'  motion to exclude certain
      opinions of Dr. Dennis Carlton.

These filings include materials that have been designated as
Confidential or Highly Confidential pursuant to the Amended
Stipulation and Protective Order dated May 12, 2016.

The consolidated multidistrict litigation (MDL 2262) commenced in
2011 and arises from allegations that sixteen major banks conspired
to suppress the London Interbank Offer Rate ("LIBOR"), an
interest-rate benchmark used in trillions of dollars' worth of
financial instruments.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O6Q3bJ at no extra
charge.[CC] 


MERGE TRANSPORTATION: Ruemenapp Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JULIAN RUEMENAPP, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MERGE TRANSPORTATION, LLC; NUVOCARGO INC.;
and JAMIE CIOE, individually, Defendants, Case No.
2:25-cv-12692-RMG (D.S.C., September 25, 2025) is an action for
Defendants' alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees worked well in
excess of 40 hours per week, and Defendants failed to compensate
them in accordance with the FLSA's overtime provision. The
Plaintiff has also brought this suit to recover his wrongfully
retained wages.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants Merge and Cioe as a broker
from April 2022 through May 2025.

Merge Transportation, LLC/Nuvocargo Inc. provide freight
transportation services to customers around the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rene Stuhr Dukes, Esq.
          Cody Groeber, Esq.
          SAXTON & STUMP, LLC
          151 Meeting Street, Suite 400
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Telephone: (843) 386-4885
          Facsimile: (843) 823-6501
          E-mail: rdukes@saxtonstump.com

MOTILITY SOFTWARE: Reynicke Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER REYNICKE and CHRISTOPHER SANTORA, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MOTILITY SOFTWARE
SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-01856 (M.D. Fla.,
September 25, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect
highly sensitive data of approximately 760,000 individuals.

On August 19, 2025, Motility discovered it had lost control over
its computer network and cybercriminals accessed highly sensitive
personal information stored on its computer network in at least two
separate incidents. Motility's investigation revealed that the
breach exposed the personally identifiable information, including
at least names, birthdates, drivers license numbers, and social
security numbers, belonging to approximately 760,000 consumers.

In failing to adequately protect consumers' private information,
adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature
of the breach, the Defendant violated state law and harmed an
unknown number of its consumers, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs and the Class are victims of Defendant's negligence
and inadequate cyber security measures. Specifically, the
Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Class trusted Defendant with
their private information. But Defendant betrayed that trust when
Defendant failed to properly use up-to-date security practices to
prevent the data breach, the suit alleges.

Motility Software Solutions, Inc. is a developer and provider of
dealer management software intended for the RV industry and
automotive manufacturers founded in 1984.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
          One Magnificent Mile
          980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (872) 263-1100
          Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
          E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com

NATROL LLC: Pending Class Cert Bids in Yamasaki Suit Terminated i
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yamasaki v. Natrol, LLC,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00182 (N.D. Cal., Filed Jan. 13, 2023), the Hon.
Judge James Donato entered an order that all pending motions
relating to class certification, summary judgment, and trial are
terminated without prejudice to renewal as may be warranted in
light of the notice of settlement.

The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Fraud.

Natrol is a seller of vitamins and dietary supplements.[CC]



NIKE RETAIL: Bid for Summary Judgment Tossed w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIANA CRUZ, v. NIKE
RETAIL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00874-L-KSC (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Lorenz entered an order denying without prejudice
the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and the Plaintiff's
motion to reconsider class certification order:

In light of the settlement, the pending motions are denied as moot
without prejudice to refiling.

NIKE is engaged in the retail sale of men's, women's and children's
footwear.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2PhMWx at no extra
charge.[CC] 


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Court Extends Class Cert Briefing Sched
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN H. BAFFORD, EVELYN
L. WILSON, and LAURA BAFFORD, v. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE
NORTHROP GRUMMAN PENSION PLAN, Case No. 2:18-cv-10219-ODW-E (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright II entered an order granting
joint stipulation to extend the briefing schedule on the
plaintiffs' class certification motion.

The class certification briefing schedule in the Court's June 24,
2025, "Scheduling and Case Management Order" is modified to read as
follows:

    Motion       Friday, Nov. 21, 2025

    Opposition   Friday, Dec. 19, 2025

    Reply        Friday, Jan. 9, 2026

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YIhLp5 at no extra
charge.[CC] 


OUTSOURCED ASSOCIATES: Discovery to Proceed in "Curry"
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Michelle Curry, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Outsourced
Associates & Staffing, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No.
2:25-cv-076-DBB-DBP (D. Utah), Chief Magistrate Judge Dustin B.
Pead of the United States District Court for the District of Utah
addressed three disputed matters arising from the parties' planning
conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The
court resolved disagreements concerning discovery bifurcation,
discovery limitations, and trial length by issuing a comprehensive
scheduling order.

The parties disagreed over whether discovery should be conducted in
two phases. The Plaintiff argued discovery should not proceed in
phases, contending certification issues were enmeshed into the
factual and legal issues underlying Plaintiff's causes of action.
The Plaintiff further asserted that bifurcating class and merits
discovery would unnecessarily delay discovery relating to
Plaintiff's second and third cause of action, which were not
dependent on certification.

The Defendant proposed two phases of discovery. The first phase,
approximately six months in duration, would focus only on
certification issues. The second phase, nine months in length,
would focus on the merits of the parties' claims and defenses.

In considering whether to bifurcate discovery in a putative class
action, courts look to both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and
42(b). Rule 42(b) provides a trial court with wide discretion to
bifurcate proceedings for "convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to
expedite and economize." The court noted that bifurcation under
Rule 42 is not the norm or even a common occurrence. The court
found bifurcation of discovery would not increase convenience,
avoid prejudice, or be conductive to expedition and economy. The
court therefore adopted the Plaintiff's position and granted
discovery to proceed without phases.

The parties disagreed on the nature and extent of fact discovery
limitations relating to fact discovery deadlines. The Plaintiff
proposed twelve months after the expiration of the notice period,
while the Defendant linked their deadlines to phased discovery. The
court rejected phased discovery and therefore did not adopt the
Defendant's proposed deadlines.

The parties further disagreed regarding expert discovery deadlines
and the dispositive motion deadline. The court determined it
follows the Federal Rules as to discovery limits and was not
persuaded the case need diverge from those limits.

TRIAL LENGTH

The parties disagreed regarding the length of trial. The court
determined that disagreement unnecessary to resolve at that time.
The court's practices are set forth in the scheduling order, and
deciding the length of trial at that stage was unnecessary.

The court granted the parties' motion and entered a comprehensive
scheduling order resolving all disputes. The following key
deadlines were established:

Initial Matters: The planning conference under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(f) was held on August 7, 2025, with counsel for
the Plaintiff (Galen Shimoda, Justin Rodriguez, Austin Sork, and
Cary Burke) and counsel for the Defendant (David Tufts and Lyndon
Bradshaw) participating. The Plaintiff served initial disclosures
on September 5, 2025, and the Defendant's initial disclosures were
to be served by September 12, 2025. The parties agreed to receive
all items required to be served by the court's electronic-filing
system or email transmission, with electronic service constituting
notice and service as required. The parties waived the right to
service by mail.

Protective Order: The court determined the case would involve
disclosure of information, documents, and materials designated as
confidential. Discovery would include contact information and
employment records relating to the Fair Labor Standards Act
allegations for all putative class members, including names, phone
numbers, emails, time and pay records, and other similar categories
of information related to the parties' claims and defenses. The
parties agreed to use the court's Standard Protective Order.

Discovery Subjects: The Plaintiff stated discovery would include
contact information and employment records relating to Fair Labor
Standards Act allegations for all putative class members, including
names, phone numbers, emails, time and pay records, and other
similar categories of information and documents related to the
parties' claims and defenses. In addition to discovery relating to
merits, certification, and damages issues, the Plaintiff would
conduct discovery relating to retaliation claims and breach of
contract claims, including performance circumstances and
termination circumstances.

The Defendant stated it would seek information regarding allegedly
worked but unrecorded time from each opt-in plaintiff. The
Defendant would seek further information regarding allegedly worked
overtime for which any opt-in plaintiff contended compensation was
not received. The Defendant would also seek to discover opt-in
plaintiffs' understanding of the Defendant's policies regarding
time recording and compensation.

Electronically Stored Information: Documents produced in response
to requests for production of electronically stored information
would be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business
unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court. The parties
anticipated documents would be produced as load files with
accompanying metadata.

Fact Discovery Limitations: All discovery limitations follow
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure standards. Maximum number of
depositions by any party, maximum hours per deposition, maximum
interrogatories, maximum requests for admissions, and maximum
requests for production are all per Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure.

Fact Discovery Deadlines: The deadline to serve written discovery
is 12 months after the expiration of the notice period. The
deadline for fact discovery to close is 15 months after the
expiration of the notice period. The deadline for supplementation
of disclosures and responses is fifteen months after the expiration
of the notice period.

Amending Pleadings and Joining Parties: The Plaintiff has a
two-month deadline to file a motion to amend pleadings after the
court's order on Plaintiff's motion for final certification. The
Defendant has a three-month deadline. The Plaintiff has a two-month
deadline to file a motion to join additional parties after the
court's order on Plaintiff's motion for final certification. The
Defendant has a three-month deadline.

Expert Discovery: Parties bearing the burden of proof must file
notice of expert designation sixteen months after the expiration of
the notice period. Parties not bearing the burden of proof must
file notice seventeen months after expiration. Parties bearing the
burden of proof must serve Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)
disclosures and reports eighteen months after expiration. Parties
not bearing the burden must serve such disclosures nineteen months
after expiration. Rebuttal reports are due twenty months after
expiration. The deadline for expert discovery to close is
twenty-one months after expiration.

Other Deadlines: The deadline for filing dispositive or potentially
dispositive motions, including a motion to exclude experts when
expert testimony is required to resolve the motion, is twenty-two
months after the expiration of the notice period. The trial will be
by jury. If the parties do not intend to file dispositive or
potentially dispositive motions, a scheduling conference will be
held the week after the dispositive motion deadline on Thursday at
3:00 p.m. After the court issues an order on summary judgment
motions, if anything remains to litigate, the court will set a
scheduling hearing to set a trial date and determine if the parties
want a referral for a settlement conference.

The court adopted a unified discovery approach rejecting
bifurcation and determined that standard Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure limitations on discovery would govern the case. By order
dated October 8, 2025, the court established a comprehensive
timeline for all discovery phases, expert disclosures, and
dispositive motion practice, providing the parties with clear
directives for case management and progression toward trial.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wZcdYg from PacerMonitor.com

PAY-O-MATIC CHECK: Saumders Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Notice
----------------------------------------------------------------
RHAGINE SAUMDERS, and KABBRIA MARTIN, Plaintiffs v. PAY-O-MATIC
CHECK CASHING CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07663-VM
(S.D.N.Y., September 16, 2025) is a class action against the
Defendant for violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act and the New York State Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant abruptly terminated her
employment -- as well as hundreds of others -- on September 12,
2025 without providing the requisite 60 days' notice under the
federal WARN Act or the 90 days' notice required under N.Y. WARN
Act.

This mass layoff does not qualify for the "unforeseeable business
circumstances" exception under either the federal WARN Act or N.Y.
WARN Act. The closure of Defendant's business was the culmination
of months of regulatory scrutiny, operational failures, and
financial deterioration that any reasonably prudent employer would
have foreseen, says the suit.

Plaintiff Saumders was hired by the Defendant in 2015 and has
worked as an hourly paid employee at Pay-O-Matic checks cashing
locations in this district.

Pay-O-Matic Checks Cashing Corp. provides check cashing and
financial services based in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (718) 669-0714
          E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com

PEPSICO INC: Faces Palmeri Suit Over Mislabeled Potato Snacks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yovani Palmeri, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PepsiCo, Inc. and Frito-Lay North America,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05371-VMS (E.D.N.Y., September
25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged
violation of New York's General Business Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' statements printed on
every bag of Frito-Lay's "Poppables" snack line: "No Artificial
Flavors," is categorically false. Despite the straightforward
claim, each of the Products at issue in this case contains citric
acid, a synthetic flavoring agent manufactured not from fruit, as
consumers might reasonably believe, but through use of black
mold—specifically, Aspergillus niger.

Consumers like Plaintiff purchase snacks labeled "No Artificial
Flavors" precisely because they wish to avoid synthetic, chemical,
or laboratory-generated compounds that are added to change the
taste or character of food. By including mold-derived citric acid
for flavoring purposes and failing to disclose it as an artificial
ingredient, Frito-Lay deceives consumers and violates New York's
consumer protection laws, says the suit,

PepsiCo, Inc. manufactures and sells the "Poppables" line of puffed
potato snacks in various flavors, including Sea Salt, White
Cheddar, Honey BBQ, Creamy Jalapeño, and Southwest Ranch, among
others.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip J. Furia, Esq.
          FURIA LAW, LLC  
          880 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (646) 830-1915
          E-mail: furiap@furiafirm.com

PNC BANK: Lyons Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply Briefs
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM T. LYONS, JR., v.
PNC BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:20-cv-02234-SAG (D. Md.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting the motion for extension
of time and extending the time to file his reply briefs to on or
before Oct. 17, 2025.

Due to the passing of Mr. Borison's mother yesterday (and who also
had recently been placed in hospice for several weeks
out-of-state), Mr. Lyons requests a brief extension of time for his
two remaining Reply Briefs which are currently due on Sept. 30,
2025.

Mr. Robinson is also preparing for oral argument before the Fourth
Circuit to occur on the matter of Rouse et al. v. Fader et al.
(Case No. 25-1004) on Oct. 23, 2025.

While work has begun on each of the Reply Briefs, in light of the
circumstances Mr. Lyons' counsel have not been able to coordinate
necessary work and require some additional time to present the
finalized Reply Briefs to the Court on or before Oct. 17, 2025.

No party will be prejudiced by this proposed extension.
Counsel for PNC has consented to the relief requested in this
motion.

PNC is the primary banking subsidiary of PNC Financial Services
Group, Inc.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aWjeFX at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip R. Robinson, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW CENTER LLC
          1220 Blair Mill Road, Suite 1105
          Silver Spring, MD  20910
          Telephone: (301) 448-1304
          E-mail: phillip@marylandconsumer.com

                - and -

          Scott C. Borison, Esq.
          BORISON FIRM, LLC
          1400 S Charles St.  
          Baltimore MD 21230  
          Telephone (301) 620-1016
          E-mail: Scott@Borisonfirm.com

PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS: Must File Class Cert Opposition by Oct. 17
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEWANNA JOHNSON. SHEILA
NATHAN, ALONZO TUTSON; EVORA SYKES, CHANELL HOBBS, REVISHA SILAS,
EVETTE TOWNSEND, v. PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, FIRSTSERVICE
RESIDENTIAL TEXAS, INC. Case No. 4:25-cv-00418-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge Mazzant entered an order granting Providence's Unopposed
Motion for Extension of deadline to file a Response to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification to October 17, 2025.

Providence governs over 2,250 homes in the town of Providence
Village, a suburb about an hour north of Dallas.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5MgZ3g at no extra
charge.[CC] 


REGULATORY DATACORP: Class Cert Bid Filing Due May 11, 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY WAYNE HUGHES and
APRIL NICHOLE GRIZZARD, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. REGULATORY DATACORP, INC. and BUREAU VAN
DIJK ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-04991-MRP (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Mia Roberts Perez entered a first amended
scheduling order as follows:

  1. All factual discovery shall be completed on or by Jan. 30,
     2026.

  2. The Plaintiff's expert report, if any, is due by Feb. 27,
     2026.

  3. The Defendant's expert report, if any, is due by March 23,
     2026.

  4. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed

     no later than May 11, 2026.

  5. Responses shall be filed no later than June 15, 2026.

  6. Replies shall be filed no later than July 10, 2026.

  7. Oral argument on the motion for class certification will be
     held on Aug. 4, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 10B.

Regulatory provides risk and financial regulatory compliance data
and software solutions for technology companies.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GwqolV at no extra
charge.[CC]
 


ROBERT F. KENNEDY: Court Blocks Federal Restrictions on Grants
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic
Violence, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in his
official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of
Health and Human Services, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
25-cv-342-MRD-PAS (D.R.I.), Judge Melissa R. DuBose of the United
States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

Over twenty non-profit coalitions that receive federal grant money
to help support survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault
as well as members of society who are unhoused or without stable
housing filed suit against the United States Departments of Health
and Human Services and Housing and Urban Development as well as
various administrators and subagencies. The Plaintiffs alleged that
the Defendants were imposing new conditions on them as grantees and
requiring compliance with new spending restrictions on grant funds,
all in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, the U.S.
Constitution's separation of powers principles, the First
Amendment, and the Due Process Clause under the Fifth Amendment.

The new conditions and certifications were focused on compelling
compliance with sweeping changes imposed by the executive branch
through Executive Orders aimed at eliminating programs perceived as
promoting gender ideology, diversity, equity, and inclusion,
elective abortions, and antidiscrimination.

The Defendant argued that the Court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction because the claims arose from contracts with the
Government and must therefore be heard in the Court of Federal
Claims under the Tucker Act. The Court rejected this argument,
finding that the APA's limited waiver of immunity does not extend
to orders to enforce a contractual obligation to pay money.
However, the Court determined that resolution of the Plaintiffs'
claims required an in-depth analysis of statutes and regulations to
determine whether Defendants acted reasonably and in compliance
with Plaintiffs' statutory and constitutional rights, not an
analysis of respective grant agreements.

The Court noted that for most Plaintiffs, the standard conditions
for a contract had not been met because either they had not
accepted the Government's proposed Challenged Conditions, or they
had accepted the grant award after the Court entered a temporary
restraining order. The Court concluded that the gravamen of the
Plaintiffs' Complaints did not turn on terms of a contract between
the parties but on federal statute and regulations put in place by
Congress.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FACTORS

Likelihood of Success on the Merits

The Plaintiffs demonstrated that the Defendants' imposition of the
Challenged Conditions likely violated the APA's restriction against
agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of
discretion. The APA instructs reviewing courts to set aside agency
action that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law. An agency action is arbitrary
or capricious if it is not reasonable and reasonably explained.

The Court found that the Defendants engaged in a baseless and
arbitrary process. The Defendants merely claimed that the rationale
for the conditions was self-evident from the language of the
conditions themselves. Nothing in the Defendants' opposition
articulated a satisfactory explanation for their decision to
implement the Challenged Conditions or discussed the process
engaged in to arrive at such decision. Based on the record, it was
impossible for the Court to find that the Defendants considered the
harmful impact their decision would have on the Coalitions and the
vulnerable populations they serve.

First Amendment Analysis

The Plaintiffs argued that the Challenged Conditions violated their
First Amendment rights because they restrict speech outside the
scope of the federally funded programs. It is a basic First
Amendment principle that freedom of speech prohibits the government
from telling people what they must say. The government may not
compel the endorsement of ideas that it approves. If there is a
bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the
government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply
because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

The constitutional issue surfaces when the Government's
speech-related condition goes beyond defining the limits of the
federally funded program to defining the recipient. The Challenged
Conditions are being enacted as extrinsic, extra-statutory
conditions on top of already existing and well-established
programs. The categorical and expansive nature of the Challenged
Conditions telegraphs that the Defendants will deny federal funding
to a whole class of programs based on viewpoint alone.

The Court determined that the Challenged Conditions impose a
viewpoint-based condition on the receipt of public funding and
require the affirmation of beliefs that by their nature cannot be
confined within the scope of the Government program. Accordingly,
they likely violate the First Amendment.

Fifth Amendment Vagueness

The Plaintiffs argued that the Challenged Conditions are
unconstitutionally vague because they impose unclear, ill-defined
prohibitions that give the Defendants sweeping discretion over
their enforcement. A fundamental principle in the legal system is
that laws which regulate persons or entities must give fair notice
of conduct that is forbidden or required. To succeed in a facial
challenge, a Plaintiff must demonstrate that the law is
impermissibly vague in all its applications. A law will not be
found to circumvent due process so long as it defines the offense
with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand
what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage
arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

The Court found that the Challenged Conditions are likely
unconstitutionally vague. The phrases promote gender ideology and
promote elective abortion obscure meaning like Russian dolls
stacked inside each other. Nothing in the Challenged Conditions
sheds light on how the Court and Plaintiffs are to construe the
intentions of the phrases. When asked what would fall into the
category of promoting elective abortion at the Preliminary
Injunction hearing, even the Defendants could not answer. Counsel
for the Defendants could only state, I don't have a more detailed
answer to give, I'm sorry to say.

Because the Challenged Conditions do not clearly identify and
define the contours of what is prohibited and therefore provide the
Defendants with unlimited discretion, the Court found that they
expose the Plaintiffs to potentially arbitrary discrimination and
enforcement and in effect are unconstitutionally vague.

Irreparable Harm

The Plaintiffs asserted that without preliminary relief they would
be forced to decide whether to accept unconstitutional and
otherwise unlawful funding conditions that are inconsistent with
congressional directives and will impede their ability to provide
core services, or to forgo federal funds that are essential to
their ability to fulfill their missions and that are necessary to
save lives.

Several Plaintiffs expressed concern that if they accept the
Challenged Conditions, they may no longer be able to provide the
same quality of services to eligible victims who identify as
transgender. They worry that they could lose their funding or face
False Claims Act liability for engaging in practices that are
crucial to their mission and values, such as providing trainings on
addressing the needs of vulnerable groups they serve.

A party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate that
irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction. The
predicted harm and the likelihood of success on the merits must be
juxtaposed and weighed in tandem. The gravity of the Hobson's
Choice facing the Plaintiffs is not lost on the Court. Accepting
grant funds subject to the Challenged Conditions would unfairly
require the Coalitions to guess at what formerly objectionable
activities are not proscribed by a given grant award. But declining
to apply for or accept grants, which they would otherwise be
eligible to receive, would cause the Coalitions just as much harm.
The Plaintiffs stand between a rock and a hard place, and surely
such a high stakes dilemma constitutes irreparable harm.

Furthermore, because Plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of
success on the merits of their First Amendment Claim, the Court
presumed that they face irreparable harm. The loss of First
Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time,
unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.

Balance of Equities and Public Interest

The Court considered the final preliminary injunction factors
together. A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must
establish that the balance of equities tips in his favor and that
an injunction is in the public interest. Since the Government is
the opposing party here, these factors merge.

Without preliminary relief, the Plaintiffs will face irreparable
harm that will disrupt vital services to victims of homelessness
and domestic and sexual violence. On the contrary, if preliminary
relief is granted, the Defendants will merely need to revert back
to considering grant applications and awarding funds as they
normally would.

The Court was unmoved by the Defendants' claim that they would
shoulder all the risk if grantees are given access to the Grants
now and draw on funds throughout the litigation. The Court noted a
fundamental distinction between this case and the issue before the
Supreme Court in National Institutes of Health, et al. v. American
Public Health Association, et al. There, the Court found that while
the loss of money is not typically considered irreparable harm,
that changes if the funds cannot be recouped and are thus
irrevocably expended. But here, the Plaintiffs are not requesting
the Court to mandate a distribution of the funds, and instead are
seeking to halt the implementation of the Challenged Conditions on
the grants appropriated by Congress for which they seek to apply.

Furthermore, the public has an interest in the Executive respecting
the Legislature's spending decisions. Accordingly, the balance of
the equities and the public interest tip in favor of the
Plaintiffs.

COURT'S ORDER

The Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction. Pursuant to Section 705 of the APA, the Court found
that it is necessary and appropriate to grant the Plaintiffs'
request for a preliminary stay of the Challenged Conditions. The
Court preliminarily set aside the following:

a. The Department of Housing and Urban Development's policy of
imposing conditions on Continuum of Care grants including the
requirement that recipients not use grant funds to promote gender
ideology as defined in Executive Order 14168, the requirement
regarding anti-discrimination laws and the False Claims Act, the
requirement that recipients not use grant funds to fund or promote
elective abortions, and conditions regarding compliance with all
current Executive Orders.

b. HUD's policy of imposing conditions on grants administered by
the HUD Office of Community Planning and Development including
similar gender ideology, anti-discrimination, and DEI-related
requirements.

c. The following policies of the United States Department of Health
and Human Services Administration for Children and Families
including the requirement that recipients certify they do not
operate any programs that advance or promote DEI, and requirements
relating to Title IX compliance.

d. The following policy of the HHS Health Resources and Services
Administration including the requirement relating to Title IX
compliance and Executive Order 14168.

Defendant HUD, Defendant Scott Turner, and any person in active
concert or participation with those parties are enjoined from
requiring any recipient or subrecipient to agree to, and from
enforcing, the aforementioned requirements or any substantially
similar requirement.

Defendant Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Defendant HHS, Defendant Andrew
Gradison, Defendant ACF, Defendant Thomas J. Engels, Defendant
HRSA, and any person in active concert or participation with those
parties are enjoined from requiring any recipient or subrecipient
to agree to, and from enforcing, the aforementioned requirements or
any substantially similar requirement.

The Defendants shall immediately treat any actions taken to
implement or enforce the conditions, or any materially similar
terms or conditions, as null, void, and rescinded. Defendants and
their assignees shall immediately treat as null and void any such
conditions included in any agreement pertaining to an ACF FVPSA
Coalition Grant or HUD Continuum of Care Grant or HUD Community
Development Block Grant executed by any applicant or grantee while
this Preliminary Injunction is in effect.

Defendants shall immediately take every step necessary to
effectuate this order, including clearing any administrative,
operational, or technical hurdles to implementation. By the end of
the second business day after issuance of this Order, HUD's counsel
shall provide written notice of this Order to all of its
employees.

The Court determined that the Plaintiffs met their burden as to the
preliminary injunction factors and found them entitled to relief.
Accordingly, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' request for a
preliminary stay of the Challenged Conditions.

A copy of the court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3hbyJ4 from PacerMotion.com

SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Wins Partial Dismissal of "Bailey" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Korine Bailey, Plaintiff, v. Sedgwick
Claims Management Services Inc., Defendant, No.
2:24-cv-02749-TLP-tmp, Judge Thomas L. Parker of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee granted in
part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss this
ERISA class action challenging a tobacco surcharge wellness
program.

Bailey sued Sedgwick both individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals as a class action under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23. She alleged that Sedgwick's tobacco
surcharge of $50 per pay period or $1,300 per year violates ERISA.
Sedgwick offers a tobacco cessation program called Quit for Life as
a reasonable alternative standard. If an employee completes Quit
for Life by June 30 of a calendar year, Sedgwick stops charging the
surcharge for the rest of the year and refunds the surcharges paid
earlier in the year. However, if an employee completes Quit for
Life after June 30, that employee no longer pays the surcharge for
the rest of the year, but Sedgwick does not refund the surcharges
paid earlier in the year.

The Court found that Bailey has standing to challenge the tobacco
surcharge. The Court stated that if the surcharge is illegal, it
matters not whether Plaintiff can get out of paying it and whether
she knew of those steps. Rather Plaintiff has the right to not to
be charged an illegal surcharge in the first instance. The Court
rejected Sedgwick's argument that Bailey lacks standing because she
never enrolled in the Quit for Life program, explaining that the
injury alleged is paying the allegedly unlawful surcharge.

However, the Court dismissed without prejudice any claims related
to supplemental and dependent life insurance premiums for lack of
standing. The Court found that Bailey has not alleged that she is
enrolled in these benefits or that she plans to enroll in these
benefits.

The Court found that Quit for Life qualifies as a reasonable
alternative standard under ERISA. The Court agreed with Sedgwick
that the full reward here is available to all similarly situated
individuals because tobacco users can be put in the same position
as non-tobacco users so long as they complete Quit for Life by June
30th. The Court explained that to read the regulations and the
statute to require full retroactive refund to all participants who
complete the Quit for Life program at any point in the year would
make the requirement that the plan shall give individuals eligible
for the program the opportunity to qualify for the reward under the
program at least once each year superfluous.

The Court rejected Bailey's reliance on the Secretary of Labor's
position in Secretary of Labor v. Macy's, Inc., noting that "the
facts here are different because Sedgwick provides retroactive
reimbursement for the participants who complete the program before
June 30.

The Court dismissed Bailey's claim that Plan materials fail to
notify participants of a reasonable alternative standard because
the Court found Quit for Life to be a satisfactory reasonable
alternative standard.

However, the Court found that Bailey plausibly alleged that
Sedgwick violated ERISA by failing to notify Plan participants that
recommendations of an individual's personal physician will be
accommodated. The regulation provides that the plan or issuer must
disclose in all plan materials a statement that recommendations of
an individual's personal physician will be accommodated. The Court
reviewed the Summary Plan Description and found no language
suggesting that Sedgwick will accommodate a physician's
recommendation.

The Court found that Bailey plausibly alleged that Sedgwick
breached fiduciary duties under ERISA Sections 1104 and 1106 in
several respects.

First, the Court found that Sedgwick acted as a fiduciary when it
assessed and collected the tobacco surcharge. The Court explained
that an entity that exercises any authority or control over
disposition of a plan's assets becomes a fiduciary.

Second, the Court found that Bailey plausibly alleged that Sedgwick
breached fiduciary duties by commingling the surcharge funds with
its own assets. The Court stated that Bailey's allegation that
Sedgwick exercised discretion over the management or disposition of
Plan assets by choosing to commingle those assets for its own
benefit differentiates Sedgwick's conduct from ministerial
conduct.

Third, the Court found that the duty of prudence imposed by ERISA
requires fiduciaries to monitor their programs for compliance with
ERISA itself. Therefore, Bailey's allegation that Sedgwick failed
to monitor Plan materials and communications to ensure compliance
with ERISA disclosure requirements sufficiently alleges a fiduciary
act.

The Court also found that Bailey sufficiently alleged harm to the
Plan. The Court stated that Bailey's allegations that Sedgwick
withheld funds from the Plan and thus harmed it state that the Plan
was injured.

Regarding prohibited transactions under Section 1106(b)(1), the
Court found that Section 1106(b)(1) is a prohibition against a
fiduciary from using plan assets to self deal broadly. The Court
concluded that Bailey plausibly alleged that Sedgwick has used Plan
assets for its own interest at the expense of the Plan.

The Court dismissed without prejudice claims that Sedgwick breached
fiduciary duties through the creation and implementation of the
tobacco wellness program or preparation of Plan materials, finding
these were non-fiduciary settlor functions.

Accordingly, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed without
prejudice any claims related to supplemental and dependent life
insurance premiums and certain fiduciary duty claims. The Court
denied the motion as to Bailey's claims that Sedgwick violated
fiduciary duties through assessment and collection of the tobacco
surcharge, retention of surcharge funds, and failure to provide
required disclosures about physician recommendations.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vvTtVa from PacerMonitor.com

SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Class Action Over Fare Increase
----------------------------------------------------------------
6abc reports that SEPTA is facing another class action lawsuit
related to its funding crisis.

This one targets the 21.5% fare increase that went into effect in
September.

The suit was filed by the same attorney who sued to restore SEPTA's
service cuts this summer.

That suit led to a court order for SEPTA to rollback that reduction
in service.

SEPTA says the fare increases are necessary to help close a more
than $213 million deficit.

The transit agency also tapped into its capital improvement fund to
help maintain operations.

SEPTA said it is reviewing the lawsuit and has no comment at this
time. [GN]


STAKE CENTER: Bid to Certify Class Referred to Magistrate Judge
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Holtsclaw v. Stake Center
Locating, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00490 (D. Colo., Filed Feb. 20,
2024), the Hon. Judge Regina M. Rodriguez entered an order
referring motion to Certify Class to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).


Stake is a provider of high-risk infrastructure and fiber optic
network locating services.[CC]


 


SUNFLOWER BANK: Class Action Settlement in Besser Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMANTHA BESSER, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SUNFLOWER BANK,
N.A., Case No. 1:21-cv-01577-RM-STV (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge
Raymond Moore entered an order granting final approval of class
action settlement:

  1. The appointment of the Plaintiff Samantha Besser as Class
     Representative is affirmed.

  2. The appointment of Sophia Gold and Jeffrey D. Kaliel of
     Kaliel Gold PLLC and David Berger and Mark Troutman of Gibbs
     Mura LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class is
     affirmed.

  3. Class Counsel is awarded attorney fees in the amount of
     $150,000.00 and costs in the amount of $2,563.75, such
     amounts to be paid from the Settlement Fund in accordance
     with the terms of the Agreement.

  4. The Class Representative is awarded an Incentive Award in the

     amount of $7,500.00 to be paid from the Settlement Fund in
     accordance with the terms of the Agreement.

  5. The Settlement Administrator is awarded $49,650.83 for its
     costs and expenses in sending notice and administering the
     Settlement and is entitled to reimbursement of those
     expenses.

  6. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter FINAL JUDGMENT
     pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
     Procedure.

Sunflower is a full-service regional bank.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aGXODe at no extra
charge.[CC]

SYNGENTA CROP: Patterson Sues Over Exposure to Harmful Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIE NELL PATTERSON, individually and as Administrator of the
Estate of RAYFIELD PATTERSON, Deceased, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP
PROTECTION LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and CHEVRON
U.S.A., INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendants, Case No.
N25C-09-214 PQT (Del. Super., September 25, 2025) seeks to recover
from Defendants compensation for injuries and damages caused by the
exposure of Decedent to Paraquat from Defendants' Paraquat
products, plus costs of suit; strict product liability; failure to
warn; breach of express warranties; fraudulent misrepresentation;
survival action; and wrongful death.

According to the complaint, the manufacturers and sellers of
Paraquat deliberately concealed the dangers of Paraquat for at
least four decades, hid evidence of its dangers from government
safety agencies, and knowingly unleashed on the public a product
that they knew caused Parkinson's disease.

Paraquat is a synthetic chemical compound that, since the
mid‐1960s, has been developed, registered, manufactured,
distributed, sold for use, and used as an active ingredient in
herbicide products developed, registered, formulated, distributed,
and sold for use in the United States, including the State of
Delaware.

The Plaintiff maintains that Defendants' Paraquat products are
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with their use.

The Decedent used Defendants' Paraquat products regularly and
frequently over a period of many years. As a result of Decedent's
many years of regular, frequent, and prolonged exposure to
Defendants' Paraquat products, Decedent contracted Parkinson's
disease which ultimately led to and/or contributed to his death,
says the suit.

Syngenta Crop Protection LLC provides crop protection chemical
products and agricultural services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
          Mark M. Abramowitz, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT LLP   
          8160 Norton Parkway, Third Floor
          Mentor, OH 44060
          E-mail: madicello@dicellolevitt.com
                  mabramowitz@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Mary S. Thomas, Esq.
          THOMAS LAW LLC
          1521 Concord Pike, Suite 301
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 647-1203
          E-mail: mthomas@marythomaslaw.com

TERA JACKSON-DAVIS: Kennedy Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Montaz Kennedy v. Tera
Jackson-Davis et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-11290-LJM-EAS (E.D. Mich.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for
class certification of action challenging a Michigan Complied Law
257.252A(6) as unconstitutional.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept. 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tGSjWS at no extra
charge.[CC]




TOURMALINE BIO: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Novartis AG
-------------------------------------------------------------
Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates
PC, headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating

  -- Tourmaline Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ: TRML) related to its sale to
Novartis AG. Under the terms of the proposed transaction,
Tourmaline shareholders will receive $48.00 in cash per share.

The Tender Offer expires on October 27, 2025.

Visit link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/tourmaline-bio-inc/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

  -- Pinnacle Financial Partners (NASDAQ: PNFP) related to its
merger with Synovus Financial Corp. Upon the terms of the proposed
transaction, the shares of Synovus and Pinnacle shareholders will
be converted into shares of a new Pinnacle parent company based on
a fixed exchange ratio of 0.5237 Synovus shares per Pinnacle share.
Upon closing of the proposed transaction, Pinnacle shareholders
will own approximately 51.5% of the combined company.

The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for November 6, 2025.

Visit link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/pinnacle-financial-partners/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

  -- Monroe Capital Corporation (NASDAQ: MRCC) related to its sale
to Horizon Technology Finance Corporation. Under the terms of the
proposed transaction, Monroe shares will be converted into the
right to receive Horizon shares subject to an Exchange Ratio.

Visit link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/monroe-capital-corporation/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

  -- Union Pacific Corporation (NYSE: UNP) related to its sale
merger with Norfolk Southern Corporation. Upon completion of the
transaction, Norfolk Southern shareholders will receive 1.0 Union
common stock and $88.82 in cash per share.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for November 14, 2025.

Visit link for more info
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/union-pacific-corporation/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:

     1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
     2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
     3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?

About Monteverde & Associates PC

Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and
we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a
national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.

No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to
obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our
website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.

Contact:

     Juan Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
     New York, NY 10118
     Tel: (212) 971-1341
     E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN]

TRAJECTOR MEDICAL: Class Cert Filing Extended to April 13, 2026
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WARRIORS AND FAMILY
ASSISTANCE CENTER LLC, et al., v. TRAJECTOR MEDICAL LLC f/k/a VET
COMP & PEN MEDICAL CONSULTING, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00290-AW-HTC
(N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Allen Winsor entered an order denying
motion for protective order and granting motion to extend
litigation schedule:

  1. The Plaintiffs' expert-disclosure deadline is extended to
     Jan. 20, 2026. The Defendant's expert-disclosure deadline is
     extended to Feb. 20, 2026. The Plaintiffs' rebuttal-expert-
     disclosure deadline is extended to March 10, 2026.

  2. The deadline to move for class certification is extended to
     April 13, 2026. Any response to a class-certification motion
     is due 21 days after its filing. And a reply is authorized
     and must be filed within 10 days after the response's filing.


  3. The deadline to complete all discovery is extended to July
     13, 2026.

  4. The deadline to provide notice of mediator selection is
     extended to May 14, 2026.

  5. The deadline to complete mediation is extended to Aug. 17,
     2026.

  6. The deadline for dispositive motions is extended to Aug. 5,
     2026.

  7. The trial is removed from the calendar. Trial will be reset
     alter if necessary.

Trajector helps the disabled population in their quest to receive
all the disability benefits.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BqgMQ0 at no extra
charge.[CC]

TRINITY TEEN: Class Settlement in Sherman Suit Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLIE SHERMAN, and AMANDA
NASH, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons,
V. TRINITY TEEN SOLUTIONS, INC., a Wyoming corporation; ANGELA C.
WOODWARD; JERRY D. WOODWARD; KARA WOODWARD; KYLE WOODWARD; and
DALLY-UP, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, Case No.
2:20-cv-00215-SWS (D. Wyo.), the Hon. Judge Scott Skavdahl entered
an order granting final settlement approval of class action.

The Court certified the following class:

From Nov. 27, 2010, to the present, the Plaintiffs, and all
similarly situated persons who received treatment from Defendant
Trinity Teen Solutions, Inc., and were subject to the provision of
"agricultural labor" (as defined in 26 CFR section 31.3121(g)(1))
or any other manual labor to one or more of the Defendants without
payment for said labor.

In this action, the Plaintiffs alleged the parents of "troubled
teen" female minors paid to send their children to a working ranch
in northern Wyoming where the teens were supposed to receive
various forms of traditional and cutting-edge therapy and schooling
to address their misbehavior.

Trinity is a residential treatment center offering family therapy
and outpatient programs.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 23, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tVNgp8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
 


UNICOURT INC: Class Certification Order Entered in Trama Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGAN TRAMA, et al., v.
UNICOURT INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-05338-FMO-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order re: motions for class
certification:

The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully
integrated joint brief covering each party's position, in which
each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately followed
by the opposing party’s/parties' response.

All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be directly to
the exhibit and page number(s) of the evidentiary appendix, or page
and line number(s) of a deposition. Parenthetical explanations are
encouraged.

The parties need not include a "procedural history" section, since
the court will be familiar with the procedural history.

The joint brief shall be accompanied by one separate, tabbed
appendix of declarations and written evidence (including documents,
photographs, deposition excerpts, etc.)

UniCourt provides real-time court data and legal analytics.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xk1bGM at no extra
charge.[CC] 


UNION PACIFIC: Grigg Wins Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Grigg v. Union Pacific
Railroad Co., Case No. 4:21CV3124 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Joseph
F. Bataillon entered an order concluding the proposed classes
should be certified and the bifurcated trial plan adopted in part.


  1. The Plaintiffs' motion to amend, Filing No. 230 in Case
     4:21cv3124 and Filing No. 236 in Case 8:22cv210, is granted.

  2. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, Filing No. 175 in
     Case 4:21cv3124 and Filing No. 182 in Case 8:22cv210, is
     granted.

  3. The Court orders the parties to confer and present a proposed

     notice form and notice plan to the Court by Oct. 3, 2025.

  4. The Defendants' motion to extend progression order deadlines,

     Filing No. 220 in 4:21cv3124 and Filing No. 227 in 8:22cv210,

     is denied.

The Court concludes the damages class meets the requirements of
Rule 23(b)(3). The following class is certified pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3):

     "Current and former Union Pacific Train Engine & Yard
     ("TE&Y") employees or job applicants who had hearing acuity
     sufficient to pass the FRA's hearing-acuity test—defined as

     not having an average hearing loss in the better ear greater
     than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or
     without use of a hearing aid—and who were subjected to one
or
     more adverse actions by Union Pacific because of their
     hearing-acuity test results between Jan. 1, 2012 and Dec. 31,

     2023."

Accordingly, the following class is certified pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2):

     "Current Union Pacific TE&Y employees or job applicants who
     wear at least one hearing aid and who do not have an average
     hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at
     500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with the use of a hearing
     aid."

The case is brought on behalf of a putative class of
hearing-impaired employees, former employees, and applicants for
employment with Defendant, Union Pacific Railroad Company.
Plaintiffs allege Union Pacific violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act when it implemented various policies affecting
hearing-impaired workers.

Union is a Class I freight-hauling railroad

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FyT4sR at no extra
charge.[CC]

UNION PACIFIC: Waldschmidt Wins Bid to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES WALDSCHMIDT, and
NANCY POLLARD, as Personal representative of CHARLIE GRIGG; v.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., Case No. 8:22-cv-00210-JFB-RCC (D.
Neb.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Bataillon entered an order
concluding the proposed classes should be certified and the
bifurcated trial plan adopted in part.

  1. The Plaintiffs' motion to amend, Filing No. 230 in Case
     4:21cv3124 and Filing No. 236 in Case 8:22cv210, is granted.

  2. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, Filing No. 175 in
     Case 4:21cv3124 and Filing No. 182 in Case 8:22cv210, is
     granted.

  3. The Court orders the parties to confer and present a proposed

     notice form and notice plan to the Court by Oct. 3, 2025.

  4. The Defendants' motion to extend progression order deadlines,

     Filing No. 220 in 4:21cv3124 and Filing No. 227 in 8:22cv210,

     is denied.

The Court concludes the damages class meets the requirements of
Rule 23(b)(3). The following class is certified pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3):

     "Current and former Union Pacific Train Engine & Yard
     ("TE&Y") employees or job applicants who had hearing acuity
     sufficient to pass the FRA's hearing-acuity test—defined as

     not having an average hearing loss in the better ear greater
     than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or
     without use of a hearing aid—and who were subjected to one
or
     more adverse actions by Union Pacific because of their
     hearing-acuity test results between Jan. 1, 2012 and Dec. 31,

     2023."

Accordingly, the following class is certified pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2):

     "Current Union Pacific TE&Y employees or job applicants who
     wear at least one hearing aid and who do not have an average
     hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at
     500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with the use of a hearing
     aid."

The case is brought on behalf of a putative class of
hearing-impaired employees, former employees, and applicants for
employment with Defendant, Union Pacific Railroad Company.
Plaintiffs allege Union Pacific violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act when it implemented various policies affecting
hearing-impaired workers.

Union is a Class I freight-hauling railroad.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XWNOWw at no extra
charge.[CC]

UNITED BANK: Davis Seeks to Certify ESOP Participant Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUTH DAVIS and JIM
OGLETREE, individually and on behalf of a class of all others
similarly situated, v. UNITED BANK CORPORATION RETIREMENT PLAN
COMMITTEE, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-00328-MTT (M.D. Ga.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying Counts I
through IX in the Complaint as a class action under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23.

The Plaintiffs bring these Claims on behalf of the following Class:


    "All participants in the United Bank Corporation Employee
    Stock Ownership Plan who terminated employment and who had not

    reached age 65 when the UBC stock in their Plan account was
    liquidated (in whole or in part) between Sept. 23, 2021 and
    Oct. 31, 2021 and the beneficiaries of such participants,
    except the Excluded Persons."

    Excluded Persons means (1) the Defendants and their immediate
    families, (2) any other current fiduciaries of the Plan or
    fiduciaries of the Plan during 2021 and their immediate
    families; (3) the officers and directors of United Bank
    Corporation and their immediate families and (4) the directors

    and executive officers of United Bank, and (5) the legal
    representatives, successors, and assigns of any of the
    foregoing persons.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify the Class Claims in the Complaint as
a class action under Rule 23(b)(1) or 23(b)(2), or, alternatively,
if the Court finds that the requirements of neither Rule 23(b)(1)
nor 23(b)(2) are satisfied, under Rule 23(b)(3).

The Plaintiffs also move to the Court for an Order appointing R.
Joseph Barton and J. Cameron Tribble as Co-Lead Class Counsel, and
Plaintiffs Ruth Davis and Jim Ogletree as Class Representatives. T

United offers personal banking, business banking, and wealth
management services.

The Defendants include JENNIFER W. EAVENSON, JAMES J. EDWARDS, JR.,
J. JOSEPH EDWARDS, SR., ALLIE E. ARMISTEAD, CHRISTOPHER C. EDWARDS,
JOHN W. EDWARDS, JR., LAURIE E. FISHER, C., THOMAS HOPKINS, JR.,
STEVE C. KEADLE, DOUGLAS J. TUTTLE, AND FORREST A. WATSON, JR.,
UNITED BANK CORPORATION, UNITED BANK, JOHN DOES 1-10, and JANE ROES
1-10.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept. 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PDcCVg at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
          THE BARTON FIRM, LLP
          1633 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20009
          E-mail: jbarton@thebartonfirm.com  

                - and -

          Roy E. Barnes, Esq.
          J. Cameron Tribble, Esq.
          BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
          191 Peachtree Street, N.E., 34th Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (770) 227-6375
          Facsimile: (770) 227-6373
          E-mail: roy@barneslawgroup.com
                  ctribble@barneslawgroup.com

UNITED STATES: Landeros Sues Over Immigration Detention System
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS LANDEROS, as a directly affected party initiating this civil
action, on behalf of himself and similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT; PAM BONDI U.S ATTORNEY GENERAL;
KRISTI NOEM SECRETARIA DE HOMELAND SECURITY; TODD LYONS - ACTING
DIRECTOR OF ICE; GEO GROUP INC.; BI INCORPORATED; CORECIVIC INC;
BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN, LLP; U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
NINTH CIRCUIT CLERK MOLLY C. DWYER; et al; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100
INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-02414-CV-DTB (C.D. Cal.,
September 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for
conspiracy to defraud the United States; violation of the U.S.
Constitution and the Bill of Rights; fraud upon the court;
obstruction of justice; torture; extortion; slavery and involuntary
servitude; discrimination; exploitation of vulnerable populations;
kidnapping; cruel and unusual punishment; and violations of
International Treaty Agreements.

The Plaintiff asserts that a network of public officials, private
contractors, nonprofit intermediaries, and judicial actors
conspired to establish and maintain a fraudulent immigration
detention infrastructure. Though presented as lawful adjudication,
this system operates as a profit-driven apparatus of exploitation,
wherein immigrants are confined for extended periods under false
pretenses, denied adequate legal representation, and subjected to
forced labor, psychological trauma, and systemic abuse.

The Plaintiff is brought by the Plaintiff alongside others who have
suffered or continue to suffer the same criminal infliction of pain
and suffering, including those who lost their lives as a direct
result of the Defendants' conduct, and the families who endure its
permanent consequences -- is actively seeking legal representation
to pursue the appropriate remedies hereby requested.

Donald J. Trump is sued in his capacity as the President of the
United States who issued executive orders that allegedly targeted
individuals based on race, ethnicity, and national origin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Damian Villegas, Esq.
          GENERAL SERVICES DEFENSORES DE LOS
           DERECHOS HUMANOS & ABOVE A.C.
          Telephone: (210) 748-6554
          E-mail: weforthelrights@gmail.com

XACTUS LLC: Must Oppose Cinner Class Cert Bid by Oct. 17
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YAAKOV CINNER, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. XACTUS, LLC and
CREDIT PLUS, LLC, individually and as successor in interest to
CREDIT PLUS, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-04531-JMY (E.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge John Milton Younge entered an order granting the parties'
joint motion to amend scheduling order.

The following deadlines in the scheduling order are vacated and
replaced as follows:

                 EVENT                             DEADLINE

  The Defendants' opposition to motion for        Oct. 17, 2025
  class certification:

  The Plaintiff's reply in support of the         Nov. 7, 2025
  motion for class certification:

The Court will set a status conference after its decision on the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification to set the remaining
case deadlines, including summary judgment, Daubert motions, the
final pretrial conference, and associated deadlines.

Xactus is a fintech innovator, specializing in advanced mortgage
verification solutions.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Lg0E9I at no extra
charge.[CC]
 


ZR CONSULTING: Fact Discovery in Mott Due May 15, 2026
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM MOTT, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, V. ZR CONSULTING LLC,
Case No. 2:25-cv-00081-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Jones entered
a scheduling order as follows:

  Deadline for completion of fact discovery: May 15, 2026

  Deadline for completion of expert disclosures by Plaintiff: June

  5, 2026

  Deadline for expert disclosures by Defendant: July 10, 2026

  Deadline for completion of expert discovery: Aug. 14, 2026

  Deadline for renewed/supplemental motion for class
  certification: Sept. 25, 2026

Z–R provides a wide range of services for both steam and gas
turbine-generator systems.

A copy of the Court's order dated Sept. 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TtTRZp at no extra
charge.[CC]


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***