251016.mbx

251016.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, October 16, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 207 Headlines A.P. DINER CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barrios Alleges AARP: Markels Seeks to Seal Class Cert. & Daubert Briefing Docs ABF FREIGHT: Filing for Class Cert in Gaddis Due May 19, 2026 ACX PACIFIC: $2MM Class Settlement in Hernandez Gets Final Nod AEGIS FIDUCIARY: Dumas Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action AHSC DTD: DoubleTree Faces Class Suit Over Labor Law Violations AKERO THERAPEUTICS: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Novo Nordisk ALDERFER FAMILY: Court Orders Supplement to Fee Motion in "Spindel" ALLEVIATE TAX: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Hadizadeh Due Dec. 2 ALPINE FUNDING: Class Cert Bid Filing in Bachhuber Due Dec. 1 ALTO PHARMACY: Filing for Class Cert in Muhammad Due Feb. 6, 2026 AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Prime Day Discounts ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS: Benson Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Pabst Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. ANTERO RESOURCES: Court Extends Class Cert Briefing Deadline ANTERO RESOURCES: Kirkbride Seeks to Seal Expert Reports ANTONE MONIZ: Orellana Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification APPLE INC: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Amended Class Complaint ATAMOS LLC: Bahena Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ATYR PHARMA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due December 8 AUTOZONE INC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Response BALL METAL: Class Settlement in Westfall Suit Gets Initial Nod BETHLEHEM, PA: Mohr Sues Over Police's Use of Excessive Force BIOGEN INC: Class Certification Deadline Extended in Shash Suit BUILDOUT INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Byer Suit Claims CABINETWORKS GROUP: Marin Sues Over Layoff Without Advance Notice CAL FRESCO: Standing Order Entered in Leon-Herera Class Lawsuit CAPITAL ONE: Arbeit Sues Over Fraudulent Investment Scheme CAPITAL ONE: Court Junks Bid to Dismiss Mullin Suit CHEX SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Riddick" CHICAGO, IL: Maysonet Balks at Illegal Ticket Issuance to Drivers CHW GROUP: Court Narrows Subpoenas in "Cameron" CIRCLE K: Class Cert Bid in Hughes Suit Extended to Jan. 26, 2026 CIRCUSTRIX HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Lopez Says CLINT MILLER: Iasella Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response CONSTELLATION BRANDS: Bid to Dimiss Meza Suit Pending COSMOS CLUB: McDowell Sues Over Retaliation in the Workplace COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Cert Filing in Castillo Due Apr. 10, 2026 DELTA AIR: Standing Order Entered in Gilkey Class Action DEXCOM INC: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Adulterated Glucose Monitors DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Class Certification Bid Deadline Stayed DOORDASH ESSENTIALS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alagic Says DUKE CAPITAL: Court Narrows Claims in Castillo Suit EI DU PONT: Plaintiffs Can Amend Class Cert Bid ELIZABETH CRAFT: Mackey Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls EMPLOYBRIDGE: Faces McCutchen Suit Over Adverse Employment Action EN-R-G FOODS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Lewis Suit Claims EPOCH EVERLASTING: Must Oppose Renewed Class Cert Bid by Nov. 10 ESSA PHARMA: Faces O'Neil Shareholder Suit EVENFLO COMPANY: Barraza Sues Over Sale of Defective Car Seats EVERCORE GROUP: Standing Order Entered in General Micro Suit EVOLUTION AB: Federal Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Suit EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Court Grants Motion for Clarification in "Bowden" FAIRLIFE LLC: Navigators Seeks Declaratory Judgment in Litigation FORTRA LLC: Claimants to Get Free Dark Web Monitoring in Settlement GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces Class Action Over Fatal Accident in Fla. GENERAL MOTORS: Barron Sues Over Master Brake Cylinder Defect GEO GROUP: Ronduen Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd GERBER PAYROLL: Coghill Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. GRUMA CORPORATION: Gomez Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. HAITECH WORKS: "Lozada" Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice HATSUHANA OF USA: Faces Limsuvanrot Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. HEALTH FIRST: Seeks to File Reply Memo Under Seal HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Class Settlement in Story Suit Gets Final Nod INTERPLAY LEARNING: Website Illegally Collects Data, Allen Says IRON HILL: May Face Suit Over Closure Without Notice to Employees JADE LEAF: Moran Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store JASPER THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit JEFF PAT: Agrees to Settle Undisclosed Wages' Suit for $900,000 JULIANNA RAE: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Davis Says KBR INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in S.D. Tex. KENVUE BRANDS: Blind Users Can't Access Websites, McCormick Claims KRISTI NOEM: Court Sets Hearing on Bid for Class Certification LAMB WESTON: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit LANDS' END: Filing for Bid to Dismiss Due Nov. 7, 2025 LEGAL CONCIERGE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Andersen Alleges LIGHTHOUSE ELECTRIC: Class Cert Filing in Brown Due May 29, 2026 LVNV FUNDING: Shaw Seeks Class Certifications MACY'S RETAIL: Stover Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. MADISON CHOCOLATE: Cazares Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website MARATHON PETROLEUM: Johnson Suit Seeks to Certify Resident Class MAREX GROUP: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit MCNAMARA CHIROPRACTIC: Court Extends Class Cert Deadline MDL 2262: Bank of America Wins Summary Judgment vs Baltimore MDL 2262: Bank of America Wins Summary Judgment vs PFI MDL 2262: BoA Wins Summary Judgment vs FDIC MDL 2262: BoA Wins Summary Judgment vs FHLMC MDL 3010: Advertisers Class' Bid to Amend Complaint OK'd META PLATFORMS: Seeks to File Docs Under Seal METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT: Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 6th Cir. MONAT GLOBAL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Lopez Suit Says MOTILITY SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Lockwood Alleges NATIONAL TENANT: Class Cert Bid in Rogers Class Suit Stayed NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Narrows Claims in Washington Suit NBT BANCORP: Class Cert Filing Bid in Richey Due March 2, 2026 NCAA: Robinson Antitrust Suit Dismissed w/ Prejudice NECKER JEWELRY: Lewis Suit Seeks Damages Over Unwanted Robocalls NEW DAY: Faces Willis Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages NEW YORK, NY: Court Dismisses Friedland SAC NEWELL BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Countertop Ovens NORTHUP CENTER: Lewis Sues Over Disabled's Equal Access to Parking OCEAN STATE: Belanger Seeks Conditional Collective Certification OCMBC INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Bryant Due Feb. 12, 2026 OHIO: Director Sued Over Illegal Taking of Private Property ONLY WHAT YOU NEED: Class Cert Hearing Set for Feb. 26, 2026 OPTIMAL BLUE: Artificially Inflates Mortgage Rates, Mendez Claims OSHKOSH CORP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Conspiracy OSI INDUSTRIES: McCurry Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Employees OTTAWA COUNTY, MI: Grainger Appeals Judgment Order to 6th Circuit OWLET INC: Class Settlement in Butala Suit Gets Initial Nod PALM TYSONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Membreno Alleges PAYACTIV INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baker Suit Alleges PAYACTIV INC: McPhearson Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info PENNYMAC LOAN: McLane Class Suit Removed to D. Mass. PERIMETER SOLUTIONS: Taylor Sues Over Charter Violations PREMIER INC: M&A Probes Sale Patient Square Capital Affiliate PRIME NOW: Filing for Class Cert in Quintero Due Feb. 6, 2026 PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN: Class Settlement in Knight Gets Final Nod PROSPER FUNDING: Fails to Protect Private Info, Valencia Says PURDUE PHARMA: Contributes to Opioid Crisis, Marshall County Says PURPOSE FINANCIAL: Class Cert Filing in Rayle Due July 27, 2026 QUEENS BOROUGH: Jackson Seeks OK of Settlement Deal RE/MAX CANADA: $7.8-Million Class Settlement Gets Final Approval RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Powers Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd REGENCE BLUESHIELD: E.S. Seeks Initial OK of $3MM Settlement Fund REPUBLIC SERVICES: CIS Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd RICKY DIXON: Prisoner Class in Wilson Suit Wins Certification RIZZI GERIATRIC: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, Stonebraker Says RUST-OLEUM CORP: $1.5MM Deal in Greenwashing Suit Gets Final OK SAMPSON BLADEN: Court Certifies Gbete FLSA Collective Action SANOFI SA: Consumers Appeal Decision in Heartburn Medication Suit SAVARA INC: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in E.D. Pa. SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Court Narrows Claims in Bailey Suit SEMLER SCIENTIFIC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Strive Inc. SIX FLAGS: Martinez Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses SKAGIT REGIONAL: Settles Privacy Class Suit With $20 Cash Payments SKECHERS USA: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Calls, Lee Suit Alleges SOHO HOUSE: M&A Investigates Merger With Affiliates of MCR Hotels SPECIALTYCARE INC: Dorta Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd SPRING EQ: Mason Wins Class Cert Bid SSP AMERICA: Torres Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Calif. STAPLES CONTRACT: Court OK's Stipulation to Modify Sched Order STAPLES CONTRACT: Felix Bid for Class Certification Tossed STEPHEN JAMES: Best Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification SYNGENTA CROP: Products Contain Harmful Chemicals, Simpson Says SYNGENTA CROP: Vickery Sues Over Paraquat Herbicide's Health Risks TEKNI-PLEX INC: Holmstrom Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info TIFFANY AND COMPANY: Illegally Installs Data Trackers, Dawkins Says TOYOTA ARENA: Filing for Class Cert in Phoenix Due Nov. 21, 2025 TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Issues Discovery Order in "Siefke" TYSON FOODS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Massive Corn Dog Recall UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Arbitration Clause Remains Valid, Fed. Ct. Says UNITED PARCEL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 20, 2026 UNITED PARKS: Court Narrows Claims in Marks Suit VONS COMPANIES: Class Cert. Discovery Extended to Oct. 31 WASHINGTON TIMES: Ramirez Seeks More Time for Responsive Pleading WATA INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge WATA INC: Knight Seeks More Time to File Class Certification WATERCO: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 17, 2026 WEST VIRGINIA: Judge Grants Class Status in Vaccine Exemption Suit WESTERN REFINING: Court Stays Peoples Suit WPP PLC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Misleading Investors YOUTH BEAUTY: Crumwell Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ********* A.P. DINER CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barrios Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- GABRIELA BARRIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A.P. DINER CORP.; PANAGIOTIS KANARAS; ANASTASIOS MATHEOS; and DAWN PISCITELLI, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-05602 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 6, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Barrios was employed by the Defendants as a hostess and a server. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 Email: promero@romerolawny.com AARP: Markels Seeks to Seal Class Cert. & Daubert Briefing Docs --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAN MARKELS, WILLIAM MARTIN, and LYNN SEDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AARP, Case No. 4:22-cv-05499-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order granting the Plaintiff's supplemental administrative motion to seal materials filed in connection with class certification and Daubert briefing. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mnJFyZ at no extra charge.[CC] ABF FREIGHT: Filing for Class Cert in Gaddis Due May 19, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fredrick Gaddis v. ABF Freight System, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-09681-CBM-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Consuelo Marshall entered an order setting the following dates: Deadline to file motion for class certification: May 19, 2026 Deadline to file opposition to motion for class certification: June 23, 2026 Deadline to file reply to motion for class certification: July 7, 2026 Hearing on motion for class certification: July 28, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. Fact discovery completion date: Sept. 22, 2026 Expert discovery completion date: Dec. 22, 2026 Settlement conference to be held on or before: Jan. 12, 2027 Pre Trial Conference is set on: May 4, 2027 at 2:30 p.m. Jury Trial is set on: June 8, 2027 at 10:00 a.m.(est. 10 days ABF is an American national less-than-truckload (LTL) freight carrier. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=izHyFp at no extra charge.[CC] ACX PACIFIC: $2MM Class Settlement in Hernandez Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hernandez, et al v. ACX Pacific Northwest Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00697-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Carolyn Delaney entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement: 1. The Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the class action settlement is granted, and the court approves the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; 2. The Plaintiff's request for an award of attorney's fees and costs, incentive award, and settlement administrator costs is also granted in part; 3. The court awards the following sums: a. Class counsel shall receive $666,667.00 in attorney's fees and $50,000 in expenses; b. The Plaintiff shall receive $20,000.00 as an incentive payment; c. CPT Group, Inc. shall receive $14,500.00 in settlement administration costs; and d. The parties shall direct payment of 75% of the settlement allocated to the PAGA payment, or $75,000.00 to the LWDA as required by California law, and the remainder of the PAGA payment, $25,000.00, shall be included in the net settlement fund; 4. The parties are directed to effectuate all terms of the settlement agreement and any deadlines or procedures for distribution set forth therein; 5. The Court declines to appoint Legal Aid at Work as the cy pres beneficiary, without prejudice to renewal of the request following disbursement of the settlement shares to Class Members; 6. This action is dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the terms of the parties' amended settlement agreement, with the court specifically retaining jurisdiction over this action for the purpose of enforcing the parties' settlement agreement; and 7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. The settlement agreement provides for a settlement payment made by defendant in the amount of $2,000,000. On March 31, 2025, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for class certification. ACX distributes forage, roughage, and products. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WN66WP at no extra charge.[CC] AEGIS FIDUCIARY: Dumas Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONI R. DUMAS, on behalf of the Lift, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, v. ROBERT E. LESSER, AEGIS FIDUCIARY SERVICES, LLC, DONALD G. HERMAN, KIRK W. SEARS, and MARK C JOHNSON, Case No. 5:23-cv-03979-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying this action as a Class Action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; (2) appointing the Plaintiff's counsel as Class Counsel; and (3) appointing the Plaintiff Toni R. Dumas as Class Representative. Aegis specializes in providing fiduciary services to clients. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8Ntzye at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patricia Mulvoy Kipnis, Esq. Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Ryan T. Jenny, Esq. Laura E. Babiak, Esq. Patrick O. Muench, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 923 Haddonfield Road, Suite 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (215) 274-9420 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: pkipnis@baileyglasser.com gporter@baileyglasser.com rjenny@baileyglasser.com lbabiak@baileyglasser.com pmuench@baileyglasser.com AHSC DTD: DoubleTree Faces Class Suit Over Labor Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- bamlawca.com reports that a new California class action lawsuit filed in San Diego County alleges that DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar violated California labor laws by denying employees their full wages, meal and rest breaks, and proper reimbursement for expenses. The case could impact numerous current and former workers at the hotel, highlighting the ongoing scrutiny of hospitality employers in California. Case: Dylan Hobdy v. AHSC DTD LLC (aka DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar) Court: San Diego County Superior Court Case No.: 25CU033344C The Plaintiff: Hobdy v. DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar The plaintiff, Dylan Hobdy, filed this lawsuit on behalf of himself and a proposed class of similarly situated current and former employees. Hobdy alleges that the hotel systematically denied workers their full wages and failed to provide legally mandated breaks under the California Labor Code. The Defendant: Hobdy v. DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar The defendant, AHSC DTD LLC, operates the DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar. As the employer, the company is accused of violating multiple California Labor Codes, regarding: -- minimum wages -- overtime -- itemized wage statements -- meal and rest periods -- timely payment of wages -- reimbursement of expenses A History of the Case: Hobdy v. DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar The September 2025 filing alleged that DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar employees were often required to work before and after their scheduled shifts without pay, and perform tasks during their unpaid meal breaks. Plaintiffs also alleged that the hotel failed to provide accurate wage statements, did not timely pay all wages owed, and ignored legal requirements to reimburse certain employee expenses. The Main Question Being Considered: Hobdy v. DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar The central issue in this lawsuit is whether DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar violated California wage and hour laws when it allegedly required employees to work off the clock, denied proper meal and rest breaks, and failed to pay or reimburse employees for all work performed and expenses incurred. Why This Case Matters: Hobdy v. DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar The Hobdy v. DoubleTree case spotlights the importance of strict compliance with California's labor laws in the hospitality industry. The case demonstrates that workers deserve compensation for all the time they work, including even small amounts of time (such as minutes worked before or after shifts, or work performed during meal breaks). For employers, the case serves as a reminder that failure to comply with wage and hour regulations can result in costly class-action litigation. FAQ: Hobdy v. DoubleTree by Hilton San Diego Del Mar Q: What law governs meal and rest breaks in California? A: According to California law, employees get a 30-minute unpaid meal break every 5 hours on the job and 10-minute paid rest breaks for every 4 hours worked. Q: Can an employer require employees to work off-the-clock? A: No. Any time an employee is under the employer's control is compensable under California law, even if the employee is not actively performing job duties. Q: Can employees recover damages in wage and hour class actions? A: Employees may recover unpaid wages, penalties, interest, attorney's fees, and in some cases, additional damages under the California Labor Code. Q: Are there legal requirements for expense reimbursements in California? A: California employers are required by law to reimburse employees for reasonable business expenses they incur as part of their job duties. Q: What should workers do if they suspect wage and hour violations? A: Employees should keep records of hours worked and consult with an experienced California employment attorney to review potential claims. California Workers: Get to Know Your Employee Rights The Hobdy lawsuit demonstrates that California workers have powerful legal protections against wage theft, denied breaks, and off-the-clock work. If you believe your employer has violated your employee rights under the California Labor Code, the attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can help. With offices in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Riverside, Sacramento, and Chicago, the firm is ready to assist workers in holding employers accountable. [GN] AKERO THERAPEUTICS: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Novo Nordisk ------------------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC, a law firm headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Akero Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: AKRO) related to its sale to Novo Nordisk A/S. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Akero shareholders will receive $54.00 per share in cash, and a non-transferable contingent value right entitling its holder to receive a cash payment of $6.00 per share upon full U.S. regulatory approval of efruxifermin by June 30, 2031. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/akero-therapeutics-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] ALDERFER FAMILY: Court Orders Supplement to Fee Motion in "Spindel" ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jeffrey Spindel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Alderfer Family Farm LLC and Alderfer Poultry Farm, Inc., Defendants, Civil Action No. 23-CV-10710 (PMH) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Philip M. Halpern of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an Order regarding deficiencies in Plaintiff's counsel's motion for attorneys' fees. On September 30, 2025, the Court directed that a motion for attorneys' fees was to be filed by October 10, 2025 and should address the Goldberger test, include a lodestar crosscheck, and be supported by detailed time records. Although a Declaration by counsel was submitted, it failed to annex counsel's time records, thus impeding the Court's ability to assess the time and labor expended by counsel. The submission likewise does not include any support for the requested award of expenses. The Court noted that the Memorandum of Law references certain paragraphs in counsel's Declaration that do not appear to align. Accordingly, by 5:00 p.m. on October 17, 2025, counsel shall supplement its submission to support the requested attorneys' fees and expenses in accordance with this order. A copy of the court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QuUrjW from PacerMonitor.com ALLEVIATE TAX: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Hadizadeh Due Dec. 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FARBOD HADIZADEH MOGHADAM, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALLEVIATE TAX, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-01810-MWC-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part stipulation to continue deadlines in scheduling order: 1. Last date to file class certification motion shall be continued to Dec. 2, 2025; 2. The Plaintiff's class certification motion shall set a hearing date no later than Jan. 23, 2026; 3. The Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's Class certification motion shall be filed no later than Dec. 23, 2025; 4. The Plaintiff's reply in support of his class certification motion shall be filed no later than Jan. 7, 2026; 5. Fact discovery cutoff shall be continued to Feb. 20, 2026; 6. Expert Discovery Cut-Off shall be continued to March 27, 2026; 7. Last day to hear motions April 3, 2026; and 8. Deadline to Complete Settlement Conference to April 3, 2026. The remaining deadlines in the Scheduling Order shall remain intact, the Court says. Alleviate is a privately-owned tax resolution company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ij7L4a at no extra charge.[CC] ALPINE FUNDING: Class Cert Bid Filing in Bachhuber Due Dec. 1 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN BACHHUBER, v. ALPINE FUNDING PARTNERS, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00907-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Anita Marie Boor entered the following rulings: 1. The Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply is granted and the court also granted his motion to compel production of a data set of call and text records from December 2020 to December 2024. 2. The Defendant's motion to compel materials and information from December 2020 to December 2024 related to whether plaintiff's phone number was used for business purposes is granted. 3. The Plaintiff's motion to extend the class certification deadline is granted in part as follows: a. Discovery production is due Oct. 16, 2025; b. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification and disclosure of class certification expert reports/summaries are due Dec. 1, 2025; c. The Defendant's opposition to class certification, disclosure of class certification expert reports/summaries, and Daubert motions for class certification experts are due Jan. 5, 2026; d. The Plaintiff's reply in support of his motion for class certification, his responses to defendant's Daubert motions, and his Daubert motions are due Feb. 9, 2026; e. The Defendant's response to the plaintiff's Daubert motions and replies in support of its Daubert motions are due March 2, 2026; and f. The Plaintiff's replies in support of his Daubert motions are due March 23, 2026. Although these deadlines have changed, the policies and procedures detailed in the court's preliminary pretrial conference order and in Judge Conley's preliminary pretrial packet remain in force. All other deadlines remain in place. Alpine provides small business funding, business loan alternatives and working capital. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xVqCTw at no extra charge.[CC] ALTO PHARMACY: Filing for Class Cert in Muhammad Due Feb. 6, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AFIYFAH MUHAMMAD, et al., v. ALTO PHARMACY LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-11315-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katharine Parker entered an order setting a new comprehensive discovery schedule as follows: Fact discovery for both individuals and the class shall be completed by April 30, 2026. The Plaintiff's deposition and any opt-in Plaintiff depositions shall be completed by Jan. 11, 2026. Document requests for the class-wide discovery shall be served by Nov. 3, 2025. Any Motion for Class Certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 shall be due by Feb. 6, 2026. The opposition is due by Feb. 27, 2026. The reply is due by March 13, 2026. A case management conference is scheduled for Dec. 2, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 127. Alto operates as a pharmacy company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sE9XYt at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Prime Day Discounts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judd Legum reports that in July, Popular Information published an expose about Amazon's Prime Day, demonstrating how the retailer deploys deceptive tactics to exaggerate its markdowns and create a false sense of urgency. The piece demonstrated how many featured products are available at similar or lower prices at other times. For example, on July 8, the Ninja Air Fryer Pro XL was on sale for $119.99, which Amazon said is a 33% discount off the list price of $179.99. But the online tool Camel Camel Camel revealed that the air fryer had never been listed at $179.99 until just before Prime Day, and had been available for $119.99 or less every month since last November. The air fryer was available for $119.99 at Macy's, Best Buy, Kohl's, and Wayfair. In late September, two customers filed a federal class-action lawsuit in Washington State against Amazon, citing the same practices reported in Popular Information. The complaint alleges that Amazon "is rife with fake sales and misleading 'percent off' claims." The plaintiffs claim that many products featured on Prime Day "were never sold, for the last 90 days if not longer, at the stricken through Fake Prior Amazon Price." According to the lawsuit, Amazon's conduct amounts to "fraudulent advertising" and "violates Washington's consumer protection laws, which prohibit 'unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices.'" The filing of the class action lawsuit has received no coverage in the mainstream media. CNN, NBC News, the New York Times, Fox News, USA Today, and Marketwatch ignored the story. And yet, over the last few days, all of those outlets published one or more articles promoting Prime Day sales to their readers, this time as part of October's Prime Deal Days. The deals offered during this sale are similarly dubious. For example, a Dyson cordless vacuum is being advertised as 37% off its list price of $629.99. But the vacuum had never been sold on Amazon for $629.99 until September. It's available on Amazon nearly every month for less than $500. Over the Christmas and New Year's holidays last year, the same vacuum was available on Amazon for $349.99. Although the actual savings to consumers may be minimal, Prime Days have proven extremely successful in generating billions of additional sales for Amazon. This creates pressure on Amazon's labor force, which already works at a breakneck pace, to push even faster. A 2024 report by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee found that 45% of Amazon warehouse employees were injured during a recent Prime Day. When media outlets create lists of featured deals, they include links to the product on Amazon. If a reader clicks the link and makes a purchase, the media outlets receive a cut. This has become a big business. In 2024, Wirecutter, the New York Times' shopping recommendation site, reportedly drove $1 billion in gross merchandise sales. In the second quarter of 2025, the New York Times reported $70.5 million in affiliate sales revenue, mainly from Wirecutter referrals to Amazon and other retailers. While this arrangement is nearly ubiquitous, it may be incompatible with rigorous coverage of Amazon's business practices. Dark patterns The Prime Day lawsuit was filed days before Amazon paid a $2.5 billion fine to the Federal Trade Commission to settle allegations that it tricked customers. The settlement resolved allegations "that Amazon enrolled millions of consumers in Prime subscriptions without their consent, and knowingly made it difficult for consumers to cancel." These practices are known as "dark patterns." Specifically, the FTC alleged that "Amazon created confusing and deceptive user interfaces to lead consumers to enroll in Prime without their knowledge." The FTC said it had obtained documents in preparation for a trial showing "Amazon executives and employees knowingly discussed these unlawful enrollment and cancellation issues." As part of the settlement, Amazon will also have to end certain practices. For example, it can no longer require consumers to click a button saying, "No, I don't want free shipping," to opt out of Prime enrollment. $1.5 billion of the settlement will go to consumers "impacted by unwanted Prime enrollment or deferred cancellation." [GN] ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS: Benson Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY BENSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08147 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.ancestry.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Ancestry.com Operations Inc. owns and operates a website which provides subscription-based genealogy, DNA testing services, and access to historical records to consumers nationwide, including those residing in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Pabst Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of CHRISTINA PABST, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Cross-Complainant v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC; ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 TO 50, Cross-Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa (Case No. L24-04434) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 2, 2025. The clerk of court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-08430. Anheuser-Busch, LLC was founded in 1979. The Company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of beer, ale, porter, and other malt beverages. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: David H. Stern, Esq. Alex Spjute, Esq. Jennifer D. Ghassemi, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 820-8800 Facsimile: (310) 820-8859 Email: dstern@bakerlaw.com aspjute@bakerlaw.com jghassemi@bakerlaw.com ANTERO RESOURCES: Court Extends Class Cert Briefing Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TREVA KIRKBRIDE, v. ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-03212-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered an order granting Antero's unopposed motion to extend class certification briefing deadline: The Preliminary Pretrial Order dated May 9, 2024, as modified on Dec. 31, 2024, April 15, 2025, and June 9, 2025, is further modified as follows: The Defendant's opposition to any class certification motion shall be due on Oct. 3, 2025, and that any reply shall be due on Oct. 17, 2025. Antero is an American company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pY9Ro3 at no extra charge.[CC] ANTERO RESOURCES: Kirkbride Seeks to Seal Expert Reports -------------------------------------------------------- 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 the Defendant's emergency motion to seal the Plaintiff's expert reports that were filed on the public docket and contain highly sensitive and confidential Antero information. Antero requests that the Court grant Antero's emergency motion to seal and remove them from public access until Antero has sufficient time to propose appropriate redactions and at such a time permit Plaintiff to re-file those documents in redacted form. Despite her expert reports containing significant amounts of Antero's confidential information, the Plaintiff never informed Antero that she intended to file those documents on the public docket. The confidential information contained in the expert reports is the same type of information that was the subject of Antero's original motion and that Plaintiff filed under seal, such that Plaintiff was unquestionably on notice that Antero considered it to be confidential. This includes the underlying details of Antero's gas gathering, compression, and processing agreements and Antero's production volume and revenue information. The Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification on Aug. 25, 2025, including both a sealed version of all exhibits and a public version of all exhibits. The public versions included Plaintiff's expert reports in unredacted form. In the course of preparing its opposition to the motion, counsel for Antero has been necessarily working with the sealed versions of those exhibits but identified today that Plaintiff’s expert reports were made fully public. Antero is an American company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C6eK9v 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 ANTONE MONIZ: Orellana Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ARNULFO GUERRERO ORELLANA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. ANTONE MONIZ, Superintendent, Plymouth County Correctional Facility, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-12664-PBS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- certifying a class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and -- appointing him as class representative and his counsel as class counsel. Specifically, Petitioner moves for an order to certify the following class: "All people who are arrested or detained in Massachusetts, or are detained in a geographical area over which, as of Sept. 22, 2025, an Immigration Court located in Massachusetts is the administrative control court, or who are otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of an Immigration Court located in Massachusetts, where: (a) the person is not in any Expedited Removal process under 8 U.S.C. section 1225(b)(1), does not have an Expedited Removal order under 8 U.S.C. section 1225(b)(1), and is not currently in proceedings before an immigration judge due to having been found to have a credible fear of persecution under 8 U.S.C. section 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii); (b) for the person's most recent entry into the United States, the government has not alleged that the person was admitted into the United States and has not alleged that person was paroled into the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. section 1182(d)(5)(A) at the time of entry; (c) the person does not meet the criteria for mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. section 1226(c); and (d) the person is not subject to post- final order detention under 8 U.S.C. section 1231." The Petitioner further requests the Court to order Respondents-Defendants to identify and give notice, immediately upon the Court's order on this motion, to all class members, including both class members currently detained and those who are detained in the future. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LQ9T6q at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony D. Mirenda, Esq. Christopher E. Hart, Esq. Gilleun Kang, Esq. FOLEY HOAG LLP 155 Seaport Blvd. Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 832-1000 E-mail: adm@foleyhoag.com chart@foleyhoag.com gkang@foleyhoag.com - and - Jessie J. Rossman, Esq. Adriana Lafaille, Esq. Daniel L. McFadden, Esq. Julian Bava, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC. One Center Plaza, Suite 850 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 482-3170 E-mail: dmcfadden@aclum.org jbava@aclum.org - and - My Khanh Ngo, Esq. Michael K.T. Tan, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 425 California Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 343-0770 E-mail: mngo@aclu.org m.tan@aclu.org - and - Gilles R. Bissonnette, Esq. SangYeob Kim, Esq. Chelsea Eddy, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 18 Low Avenue Concord, NH 03301 Telephone: (603) 333-2081 E-mail: gilles@aclu-nh.org sangyeob@aclu-nh.org chelsea@aclu-nh.org - and - Carol J. Garvan, Esq. Max I. Brooks, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MAINE FOUNDATION Portland, ME 04112 Telephone: (207) 619-8687 E-mail: cgarvan@aclumaine.org mbrooks@aclumaine.org - and - Annelise M. Jatoba de Araujo, Esq. ARAUJO & FISHER, LLC 75 Federal St., Ste. 910 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 716-6400 E-mail: annelise@araujofisher.com - and – Sameer Ahmed, Esq. Sabrineh Ardalan, Esq. HARVARD IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE CLINICAL PROGRAM Harvard Law School 6 Everett Street Cambridge, MA 02138 Telephone: (617) 384-0088 Facsimile: (617) 495-8595 E-mail: sahmed@law.harvard.edu sardalan@law.harvard.edu APPLE INC: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Amended Class Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER LANDSHEFT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., a California Corporation, Case No. 5:25-cv-02668-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant, on Jan. 7, 2026 at 9:00 am, will move under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint ("CACC"). The Defendant contends that CACC has multiple defects and should be dismissed in its entirety. First, although reliance or causation is an element of every claim, no Plaintiff alleges with the requisite specificity the "what," "when," or "where" of their purported reliance on Apple’s marketing. Second, Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law through their damages claims, so the Court lacks equitable jurisdiction over the UCL, FAL, and unjust enrichment claims. Finally, each of the Plaintiffs' claims suffers additional independent defects, including that Plaintiffs fail to adequately allege that Apple's conduct was "unlawful" or "unfair" for purposes of their UCL claim; the Plaintiffs do not identify any express warranty for which they provided the requisite pre-suit notice or that was breached; the Plaintiffs fail to allege that iPhone 16 was unfit for its ordinary purpose as a phone to state an implied warranty claim; the economic loss rule bars their negligent misrepresentation claim; and Plaintiffs identify no contract that was allegedly breached. On June 10, 2024, Apple announced "Apple Intelligence" -- a suite of AI-powered features for certain iPhone, iPad, and Mac products On October 28, 2024, Apple released the "first set" of Apple Intelligence features: Writing Tools, Rewrite, Proofread, Summarize, "more natural and conversational" Siri, type to Siri, Siri with product knowledge, Natural Language search functionality in the Photos app, Clean Up tool, Memories, Priority Messages, Summarize, Smart Reply, Reduce Interruptions, and enhanced capabilities for Notes and Phone apps.” The Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of a putative nationwide class and 38 state sub classes of "all "residents who purchased an iPhone 16, iPhone 16e, iPhone 16 Plus, iPhone 16 Pro, and iPhone 16 Pro Max, for purposes other than resale . . . from Sept. 13, 2024, to March 7, 2025."" Apple is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ERjVFt at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Emily Johnson Henn, Esq. Kathryn E. Cahoy, Esq. Megan L. Rodgers, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 3000 El Camino Real 5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Telephone: (650) 632-4700 Facsimile: (650) 632-4800 E-mail: ehenn@cov.com kcahoy@cov.com mrodgers@cov.com ATAMOS LLC: Bahena Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY BAHENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATAMOS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11978 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 1, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.trainmoment.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Atamos, LLC provides to the public a website known as Trainmoment.com, which provides consumers with access to an array of services, including, the ability to view a variety of structured training sessions, including strength training and conditioning programs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 Facsimile: (929) 442-2154 Email: achan@ealg.law ATYR PHARMA: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due December 8 --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Shamis & Gentile, P.A. alerts investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed against aTyr Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATYR) on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired aTyr Pharma common stock between January 16, 2025 and September 12, 2025, inclusive. The lead plaintiff deadline for this action is December 8, 2025. Impacted investors may also contact attorney David Abel at securities@shamisgentile.com or (305) 479-2299. WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT? aTyr Pharma recently conducted a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intravenous Efzofitimod in patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis (EFZO-FIT). The complaint alleges that, during the relevant period, the defendants disseminated false and misleading statements and/or concealed material adverse facts concerning the efficacy of Efzofitimod, particularly, the drug's capability to allow a patient to completely taper their steroid usage. On September 15, 2025, the truth allegedly emerged when aTyr Pharma hosted an investor presentation where it announced topline results for the Phase 3 EFZO-FIT study of Efzofitimod in pulmonary sarcoidosis. Specifically, aTyr Pharma disclosed that EFZO-FIT failed to meet its primary endpoint of change from baseline in mean daily oral corticosteroid dose at week 48. Additionally, aTyr Pharma announced that the company's next step was to engage with the FDA to determine a path forward, given the disappointing topline results. Following this news, aTyr Pharma's stock price fell 83.2%, from $6.03 per share on September 12, 2025 to $1.02 per share on September 15, 2025. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? Shamis Gentile, P.A. alerts impacted investors that the deadline for seeking appointment as a lead plaintiff in this lawsuit is December 8, 2025. Investors who suffered losses from trading aTyr Pharma securities during the relevant period may contact attorneys at the law firm more information on how to seek a claim for recovery: https://shamisgentile.com/securities-fraud/atyr-pharma-inc-securities-fraud-investigation ABOUT SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. Shamis & Gentile, P.A. stands out as an advocate for investors who are victims of securities fraud. The firm is committed to securing recoveries for investors who have incurred damages due to false and misleading statements or other corporate misconduct by public companies. Shamis Gentile, P.A. has recovered over $1 billon for consumers nationwide. Its extensive experience, expertise, and resources enable the firm to resolve disputes in a wide range of matters, including class actions, mass torts, and mass arbitrations. CONTACT David Abel, Esq. Shamis & Gentile, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Tel: (305) 479-2299 securities@shamisgentile.com www.ShamisGentile.com [GN] AUTOZONE INC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Response ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SHAPLLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AUTOZONE, INC., Case No. 9:25-cv-80770-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting request for a seven-day extension, until October 9, 2025, to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, and for any and all other relief this Court deems just and proper. The Plaintiff commenced this putative class action on May 13, 2025, by filing the Complaint in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. AutoZone removed the state court action to this Court on June 18, 2025. Plaintiff filed his Amended Class Complaint on July 31, 2025, and AutoZone moved to dismiss on August 14, 2025. On August 21, 2025, this Court issued a Pretrial Scheduling Order requiring any motions for class certification to be filed by Sept. 18, 2025. AutoZone's present deadline to respond to the Motion for Class Certification is Oct. 2, 2025, which presents a dilemma because of the pending Motion to Modify. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R9rJg2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Samuel L. Felker, Esq. Desislava K. Docheva, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 200 East Broward Blvd., Suite 2000 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 768-1600 E-mail: samfelker@bakerdonelson.com ddocheva@bakerdonelson.com BALL METAL: Class Settlement in Westfall Suit Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT WESTFALL, et al., v. BALL METAL BEVERAGE CONTAINER CORPORATION, Case No. 2:16-cv-02632-DAD-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Drozd entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement is granted; 2. The Plaintiff's request for status is denied as having been rendered moot by this order; 3. The court preliminarily confirms and appoints plaintiffs Robert Westfall, David E. Anderson, Lynn Bobby, and David Ellinger, and Objectors Richard Martin and Andre Bernstein as the Class Representatives for settlement purposes; 4. The court preliminarily confirms and appoints Timothy B. Del Castillo and Spencer S. Turpen of Castle Law: California Employment Counsel, PC; Matthew R. Eason and Erin Scharg of Eason & Tamborini, ALC; Levi Lesches of Lesches Law; and I. Benjamin Blady of Blady Workforce Law Group LLP as Class Counsel for settlement purposes; 5. ILYM is approved as the Settlement Administrator; 6. The proposed Class Notice is approved in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; 7. The hearing for final approval of the proposed settlement is set for Monday, May 4, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. The Plaintiffs define the scope of the settlement class (the "Class" or "Class Members") as: "all persons employed by Defendant Ball in a Class Position, at any time during the Class Period." The Class Position "shall mean a position for which workweeks are eligible as a 'Class Member Work Week' or as a 'Engineering Class Member Work Week.'" Class Member Work Week "shall mean a Work Week in which a Class Member was employed by Defendant in California during the Class Period in a non-exempt employment position as an 'Machinist/Mechanic,' and/or 'Maintenance,' or a non-exempt position within the production, and production support departments, at Defendant's facility located in Fairfield California, or in a functionally equivalent and supporting non-exempt position (but excluding Chemical Processors, Quality Assurance or Production Lead [formerly known as Production Chief] positions, or 'Electronic Tech,' 'Electronic Technician,' 'ET' positions)." Engineering Class Member Work Week "shall mean a Work Week during the Class Period in which a Class Member was employed by Defendant in California, at Defendant's facility located in Fairfield, California, in a non-exempt 'Engineering Position,' defined as Chemical Processor, Quality assurance or Production Leads (formally known as Production Chiefs) positions, or 'Electronic Tech,' 'Electronic Technician,' 'ET,' or functionally equivalent non-exempt positions in the Engineering Department (and in which the Class Member was not classified as employed in a non-Engineering position during any portion of the workweek)." Under the parties' Settlement Agreement, defendant will pay a gross settlement amount ("GSA") of $4,500,000.00. Ball provides packaging services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vblpEg at no extra charge.[CC] BETHLEHEM, PA: Mohr Sues Over Police's Use of Excessive Force ------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN MOHR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF BETHLEHEM, POLICE OFFICER SAM DOMENICO, POLICE OFFICER GONZALEZ, LEHIGH COUNTY, SERGEANT JOHN DOE 1, and CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS JOHN DOE 1-2, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-05736 (E.D. Pa., October 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for use of excessive force in violation of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, failure to intervene, supervisory liability, conspiracy, and Monell claim. The case arises from the Defendants' use of excessive force and/or failure to intervene to prevent the use of excessive force on the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals in Pennsylvania. Moreover, the Defendants failed to enforce a policy or training that would have prevented these violations of the Plaintiff's rights, suit says. City of Bethlehem is a municipal government in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Renae B. Axelrod, Esq. ABRAMSON & DENENBERG, P.C. 1315 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 546-1345 Email: raxelrod@adlawfirm.com - and - Richard L. Stutman, Esq. ABRAMSON & DENENBERG, P.C. 1315 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 546-1345 Email: rstutman@adlawfirm.com BIOGEN INC: Class Certification Deadline Extended in Shash Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shash, et al., v. Biogen Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-10479 (D. Mass., Filed March 19, 2021), the Hon. Judge Indira Talwani entered an order allowing motion to extend class certification deadline. The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. Biogen is an American multinational biotechnology company.[CC] BUILDOUT INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Byer Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- HAYDEN BYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUILDOUT, INC. d/b/a PROSPECTNOW, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12217 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 6, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Buildout, Inc. d/b/a Prospectnow operates as a software company. The Company develops real estate marketing software that offers entire listing process for brokerages. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven P. Sukert, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: sukert@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com CABINETWORKS GROUP: Marin Sues Over Layoff Without Advance Notice ----------------------------------------------------------------- BERTHA MARIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CABINETWORKS GROUP MULTIUNIT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01007 (E.D. Tex., October 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. The case arises from the Defendant's action of terminating the employment of the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as a result of a mass layoff ordered by the Defendant on or about February 06, 2024, without providing adequate advance notice as required by the WARN Act. Cabinetworks Group Multiunit, LLC is a manufacturer of cabinetry and related wood products, headquartered in Dallas, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Curt Hesse, Esq. Melissa Moore, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1110 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 Email: curt@mooreandassociates.net melissa@mooreandassociates.net CAL FRESCO: Standing Order Entered in Leon-Herera Class Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN CARLOS LEON−HERERA, v. CAL FRESCO, LLC, et al. Case No. 5:25-cv-02325-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal entered a standing order as follows: The Plaintiff shall serve the Complaint promptly in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to L.R. 5−3.1. Any answers filed in state court must be re−filed in this Court (separately) as a supplement to the petition. Any pending motions must be re−noticed in accordance with L.R. 6−1. Under 28 U.S.C. section 636, the parties may consent to have a Magistrate Judge preside over all proceedings. The Magistrate Judges who accept those designations are identified on the Central District's website, which also contains the consent form. Motions shall be filed and set for hearing in accordance with L.R. 6−1. Motions will be heard on Mondays commencing at 9:00 a.m. Any motion noticed for a holiday shall automatically be set to the next Monday without further notice to the parties. Cal Fresco produces food products. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3UPJ7d at no extra charge.[CC] CAPITAL ONE: Arbeit Sues Over Fraudulent Investment Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------- JEFF ARBEIT; SELENA KANSAL; STUART SWANSON; KEITH FLOWERS; SUSAN COLOWICK; and RYAN BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A.; and CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORP., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00821 (E.D. Va., Oct. 6, 2025) alleges violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and Class members opened and maintained 360 Money Market accounts based on Capital One's promises that they would receive "one of the nation's best savings rates" and in particular, "one of the nation's best savings rates for accounts with balances of $10,000 or more." Instead of providing Plaintiffs and Class members with the product they advertised, Capital One duped its high-balance customers into thinking they had a superior and unique savings opportunity by investing in the 360 Money Market accounts, when in fact the 360 Performance Savings was far superior. Not only was Capital One's 360 Money Market account product substantially worse than its 360 Performance Savings account product, but from at least 2022 to the present, the interest rate and yield it offered, advertised as "one of the nation's best," was significantly inferior to money market accounts offered by Capital One's competitor banks. Capital One's conduct has deprived Plaintiffs and Class members of interest payments they would have received if Capital One kept its promises to their 360 Money Market customers, alleges the suit. Capital One, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank offers financial products and services such as personal and business checking, savings accounts, investment, mortgages, issues credit card, business loans, and commercial banking solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Susan R. Podolsky, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SUSAN R. PODOLSKY 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600 Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (571) 366-1702 Facsimile: (703) 647-6009 Email: spodolsky@podolskylaw.com - and - Kelly Tucker, Esq. Chad Holtzman, Esq. Nathan Reeder, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison St., 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 Facsimile: (302) 622-7100 Email: ktucker@gelaw.com choltzman@gelaw.com nreeder@gelaw.com - and - Brian Schall, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 301-3335 Facsimile: (213) 519-5976 Email: brian@schallfirm.com CAPITAL ONE: Court Junks Bid to Dismiss Mullin Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EILEEN MULLIN, and SOPHA GUTHRIE, V. CAPITAL ONE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00816-MHL (E.D. Va.), the Court will deny the motion to dismiss and/or strike the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court will deny Capital One's motion to strike Plaintiffs' collective action allegations for seeking damages beyond the two-year statute of limitations. Capital One may raise its statute of limitations argument as the case proceeds, but Plaintiffs have plausibly pled willfulness for the purposes proving their entitlement to a three-year statute of limitations at this stage of the proceedings. The Plaintiffs plainly state a claim for violations of both the FLSA and the VOWA. The Court will deny the motion to dismiss According to the Plaintiffs, Capital One misclassified them as exempt from overtime pay requirements and failed to pay them overtime premiums as required by the FLSA and the VOWA. On Nov. 15, 2024, Ms. Mullin filed a Complaint against Capital One alleging failure to pay overtime premiums to individuals it employs as Process Managers, Ops Associates, and Content Managers in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act ("VOWA"). The Plaintiffs seek to certify under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) a nationwide opt-out class action of Process Managers, Ops Associates, and Content Managers who have worked for Capital One in Virginia in the past three years and suffered violations of the VOWA’s overtime requirements. The Plaintiffs seek certification of three subclasses composed of Process Managers, Ops Associates, and Content Managers, respectively. The Plaintiffs' proposed subclasses would consist of all Virginia-based Process Managers, Ops Associates, and Content managers who "were classified as exempt from overtime laws, worked over forty hours in any week, and were not a 'people manager' or 'people leader' in any such week." Capital provides financial services. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LdN4mm at no extra charge.[CC] CHEX SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Riddick" -------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Sharon K. Riddick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Chex Systems, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-700 (E.D. Va.), Judge Jamar K. Walker of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division, denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss a class action complaint. The Court denied the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Chex Systems, Inc. This Opinion memorializes its reasoning. The case is a class action brought under Section 1681e(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which requires consumer reporting agencies to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in their credit reporting. Chex is a consumer reporting agency subject to Section 1681e(b) requirements. In September 2019, the Plaintiff obtained a bankruptcy discharge that included her SunTrust bank account. However, when the Plaintiff applied for a bank account with Chartway Federal Credit Union in March 2024, her application was denied due to an overdrafted account with SunTrust that was marked UNPAID in her Chex report—even though she no longer owed the debt. The Plaintiff brought this suit on behalf of herself and others who were subject to a Chex consumer report that erroneously indicated an outstanding balance on an account that was discharged in bankruptcy. The Plaintiff seeks recovery under 15 U.S.C. Section 1681n, which governs civil liability for willful violations of the FCRA and allows recovery of punitive damages. While the Plaintiff does not engage with the possibility that Chex's alleged violations of Section 1681e(b) were negligent, Section 1681o allows for recovery of actual damages for a negligent violation of the FCRA. The Plaintiff raises two possible ways Chex may have failed to implement reasonable procedures in releasing her information. First, she alleges Chex should have had procedures in place to ensure the accuracy of consumer data provided by banks, possibly by cross-referencing or using automated reviews of the public bankruptcy record. Second, she alleges Chex should have been aware that SunTrust Bank, which provided Chex with information about the Plaintiff's chargeoff account, was not a presumptively reliable source of consumer data and that, therefore, Chex should not have reported information from SunTrust without further investigation. The Court found that the Plaintiff states a claim under Section 1681e(b) of the FCRA. To prove a violation of Section 1681e(b), whether negligent or willful, a plaintiff must establish not only that the consumer reporting agency reported inaccurate information but also that the agency failed to follow reasonable procedures to ensure it did not report inaccurate information. For the purpose of its motion to dismiss, Chex does not dispute that the information it reported about the Plaintiff was inaccurate. The Amended Complaint plausibly alleges that Chex failed to follow reasonable procedures and that such failure was willful. Under 15 U.S.C. Section 1681e(b), the Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the consumer reporting agency failed to follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy. Normally, a jury must decide whether the defendant's procedures meet the very high standard set by the FCRA. And a jury must consider whether the defendant's procedures were reasonable in context, not in a vacuum. The Plaintiff alleges Chex produced a consumer report indicating the Plaintiff had an unpaid chargeoff account even though that account had been discharged in a publicly reviewable bankruptcy proceeding. She alleges, too, that the Defendant had ZERO procedures in place to confirm the information it reported against the public bankruptcy record. According to the Amended Complaint, Chex's reports suffered from frequent errors in bankruptcy related credit information, and the Defendant received multiple complaints through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau over the past decade flagging that its reports misrepresented debts discharged in bankruptcy—the same kind of debt it misrepresented in the Plaintiff's report. It is in this context that the Plaintiff alleges Chex failed to follow reasonable procedures by disclosing information about consumer debts without either conducting an initial investigation of whether its data sources were reliable or incorporating a review of public bankruptcy filings. The Court cannot now determine whether the Plaintiff will be able to show that Chex failed to use reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of its reporting. At this stage, however, the Plaintiff has alleged facts that, if true, could demonstrate that Chex's procedures were not reasonable in the context. To recover damages, the Plaintiff must show that Chex's violation was either willful or negligent. The Amended Complaint asserts only that the violation was willful. A willful violation under Section 1681n encompasses reckless violations of the FCRA. Accordingly, to demonstrate willfulness the Plaintiff does not need to allege Chex acted maliciously. Instead, she needs only to plausibly assert that Chex knowingly and intentionally committed an act in conscious disregard for the rights of the consumer. Like the reasonableness of procedures, a defendant's willfulness is usually a question for a jury and is rarely resolved even at summary judgment. To guard against harm to consumers, the FCRA requires agencies like Chex to use reasonable procedures to ensure their reports are accurate. The Amended Complaint plausibly alleges that, as a business selling credit reports, Chex knew it was subject to FCRA requirements and was aware that inaccuracies in its reports could lead to severe consequences for its many consumers. By asserting that Chex continued to use existing and limited procedures despite knowing that it produced frequent errors, the Plaintiff plausibly alleges Chex behaved with conscious disregard for consumers' rights. According to the Amended Complaint, Chex was aware that its procedures failed to guard against reports containing inaccurate information about debts discharged in bankruptcy. It knew these inaccuracies were systematic because it received multiple consumer complaints through the CFPB and because it knew of several lawsuits against it and other credit reporting agencies stemming from this type of inaccurate information. And yet, Chex sold consumer credit reports without implementing any procedure to identify and correct these common errors prior to furnishing reports. These factual allegations, if true, could support a finding that if Chex failed to comply with the FCRA, that failure was willful. For these reasons, the Court denied the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Chex Systems, Inc. A copy of the Court's order dated 10th October is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=usk1MC from PacerMonitor.com CHICAGO, IL: Maysonet Balks at Illegal Ticket Issuance to Drivers ----------------------------------------------------------------- JANETTE MAYSONET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12191 (N.D. Ill., October 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful practice of issuing automated speed enforcement ("ASE") tickets to drivers in School Safety Zones ("SSZ") located by Chicago High Schools and other SSZs. According to the complaint, the Defendant has been wrongfully issuing ASE tickets and fining drivers, including the Plaintiff and the proposed Classes, when they were driving in SSZ's near high schools when no children were present. Additionally, the Defendant has posted inappropriate signage in all SSZs located within the city. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages, says the suit. City of Chicago is a municipal government in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel I. Schlade, Esq. James M. Dore, Esq. 6232 N. Pulaski, Ste. 300 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (773) 550-3775 Email: danschlade@gmail.com james@dorelawoffices.com CHW GROUP: Court Narrows Subpoenas in "Cameron" ----------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jordan Cameron, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHW Group, Inc. d/b/a Choice Home Warranty, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-CV-00320-HCN-DBP, Chief Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead of the United States District Court for the District of Utah granted in part Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Subpoenas, modifying three subpoenas issued by Defendant to protect against irrelevant and potentially privileged information. This is a putative class action against Defendant for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA). Defendant recently noticed three subpoenas seeking documents and records pertaining to Plaintiff's phone number and internet usage. The subpoena to AT&T requests all documents and records covering the time period 9/1/2022 to 2/28/2023 identifying the subscriber for the phone number and reflecting all communications (calls or text messages, including the contents of all texts) to or from said phone number. The first subpoena to Lumen seeks all records identifying the subscriber or reflecting internet usage (including any websites, IPs, or URLs accessed or visited) for any internet services provided by the company at Plaintiff's home address on or between September 1, 2022 and February 23, 2023. The second subpoena to Lumen requests all records identifying the subscriber or account holder associated with, that reflect any internet usage or access of the internet by, and/or that otherwise relate to a specific IP address on or between September 1, 2022 and February 23, 2023. During the meet and confer process, Plaintiff objected to the subpoenas and proposed some narrowing of them. Plaintiff sought these changes to avoid the disclosure of private communications and internet activity, including of individuals who are not even a party to this action. Plaintiff's proposed narrowing was rejected by Defendant and the current motion followed. The Court found that Plaintiff has demonstrated that he has a personal right or privilege to the information sought in the subpoenas. The Court was persuaded that the information sought, such as text discussions and internet sites visited, concerns personal information. The requests may also uncover privileged information in this case because Plaintiff is an attorney. Thus, Plaintiff has standing to contest the subpoenas, but Plaintiff lacks standing to object to the subpoenas based on undue burden, and on the grounds of over breadth and relevance. The Court found the subpoenas to be problematic. They seek all documents and records pertaining to calls or text messages and all records pertaining to an IP address. Such requests have the likely potential to require the production of privileged or irrelevant information. Even where a party lacks standing to challenge a third-party subpoena, the court must still limit irrelevant and non-proportional discovery requests. Defendant's subpoenas as drafted seek irrelevant information from non-parties to this action that may have used Plaintiff's internet. In weighing the possibility of irrelevant and privileged information, the Court noted that this is a TCPA case. Thus, questions about permission or invitation, receipt of a telephone solicitation, a business relationship with Defendant or its affiliates, and whether Plaintiff's status as a residential subscriber are at issue. This type of information is relevant to Defendant's case and proportional to the needs of this case. Defendant cites numerous authorities permitting the production of call logs and similar related data. This authority is persuasive to the extent that the subpoenas should not be entirely quashed. The Court reviewed Plaintiff's proposed changes to the subpoenas and found they accommodate the balance between excluding irrelevant and potentially privileged information and allowing Defendant needed discovery. For example, Defendant may obtain information identifying call or text logs but not the contents of the respective texts. Thus, the Court modified the subpoenas adopting the proposals set forth by Plaintiff. Defendant may add additional URLs of interest or any other targeted information toward establishing its defenses. Further, if Defendant can specifically identify certain text numbers that directly relate to its defenses, it is possible that a heightened showing could be made for the specific text contents at a later date. Finally, Plaintiff insinuated Defendant violated some protocol or the rules by not seeking discovery from Plaintiff first before third parties. There is no requirement that a party seek discovery from another party before serving a nonparty subpoena. As such any request for fees is unfounded. Accordingly, the Court granted in part Plaintiff's Motion. The Court adopted the proposed narrowing of subpoenas as set forth by Plaintiff in its moving papers. For the AT&T subpoena, the modified request includes documents and records sufficient to identify the subscriber(s) for the phone number from 9/1/2022 to 2/28/23, and any and all call or text logs for the phone number from 9/1/2022 to 2/28/23, that identify the phone numbers involved in the communication, the date and time of the communication, and the duration of the communication in the case of a call, but do not provide documents disclosing the contents of any texts. For the first Lumen subpoena, the modified request includes documents sufficient to identify the subscriber(s) for any internet services provided by the company at the specified address on or between September 1, 2022 and February 23, 2023, and all records reflecting any access to specific URLs through any internet services provided by the company at that address during that time period. For the second Lumen subpoena, the modified request includes documents sufficient to identify the subscriber(s) or account holder(s) associated with the IP address on or between September 1, 2022 and February 23, 2023. A copy of the Court's decision dated 10th October is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v2LKhu from PacerMonitor.com CIRCLE K: Class Cert Bid in Hughes Suit Extended to Jan. 26, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hughes v. Circle K Stores, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01071 (C.D. ILL., Filed Feb. 9, 2024), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Mihm entered an order as follows: -- Close of Class Discovery is extended to Nov. 15, 2025 -- The Plaintiff's Expert Disclosure deadline is extended to Dec. 8, 2025 -- The Defendant's Expert Disclosure Deadline is extended to Dec. 31, 2025 -- Class Certification deadline is extended to Jan. 26, 2026 -- Fact Discovery Completion is due 90 days after ruling on class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Circle K is a convenience store and gas station chain.[CC] CIRCUSTRIX HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Lopez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ VICTOR LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CIRCUSTRIX HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08268 (S.D.N.Y., October 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, and New York State General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.skyzone.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text equivalent, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Circustrix Holdings, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal CLINT MILLER: Iasella Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN IASELLA, for himself, and for others similarly situated, v. CLINT MILLER, Case No. 3:25-cv-00032-HRH (D. Alaska), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting a two-week extension of time until Oct. 9, 2025, within which to file a response to the Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AZgGLq at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Kevin T. Fitzgerald, Esq. INGALDSON FITZGERALD, P.C. 813 West Third Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907) 258-8750 Facsimile: (907) 258-8751 E-mail: kevin@impc-law.com CONSTELLATION BRANDS: Bid to Dimiss Meza Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Constellation Brands Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending August 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 7, 2025, that the bid to dismiss the Meza securities class suit is pending before the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. On February 18, 2025, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York captioned Meza v. Constellation Brands, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-6107 (W.D.N.Y.). The complaint names as defendants the Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer, and its Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder arising from allegedly materially false or misleading statements or omissions of purportedly material fact concerning, among other things, the Company's strategies intended to improve the performance of its wine and spirits business. On July 17, 2025, an amended complaint was filed in the Meza litigation. The amended complaint asserts the same causes of action against the same defendants, but alleges materially false or misleading statements or omissions of purportedly material fact concerning, among other things, the prospects of its beer business. There are no allegations in the amended complaint regarding its wine and spirits business. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, alleged damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys’ fees, and costs. On September 17, 2025, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion remains pending. Constellation together with its subsidiaries, produces, imports, markets, and sells beer, wine, and spirits in the United States, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, and Italy.[BN] COSMOS CLUB: McDowell Sues Over Retaliation in the Workplace ------------------------------------------------------------ SANDRA MCDOWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSMOS CLUB, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03562 (D.D.C., October 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for retaliation in violation of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act. Plaintiff McDowell started to work for the Defendant as a part-time catering assistant on or around March 29, 1997. She was promoted to assistant general manager position in or around 2016. She was terminated on or around May 19, 2025 after she refused to sign a retention and a new employment agreement. Cosmos Club is a non-profit corporation, with its headquarters located in Washington, D.C. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Scott Oswald, Esq. Kellee Boulais Kruse, Esq. THE EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, PC 1717 K. St. NW, Ste. 1110 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 261-2838 Facsimile: (202) 261-2835 Email: soswald@employmentlawgroup.com kkruse@employmentlawgroup.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Cert Filing in Castillo Due Apr. 10, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESUS CASTILLO, MARK KNOWLES, ALEX RODRIGUEZ, NICHOLAS JAMES THROLSON, R.S., KIMBERLY SCOTT, ROBIN WARBEY, DANIEL SMITH, MATT GROVES, VERN DEOCHOA, TYRONE WASHINGTON, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-01548-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Chun entered a stipulated amended scheduling order as follows Deadline to complete fact discovery on Apr. 10, 2026 class certification (not to be construed as a bifurcation of discovery): Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Motion for Apr. 10, 2026 class certification and any Plaintiff's expert reports, re: Class Certification: Deadline for the Defendant to file May 29, 2026 opposition to motion for class certification, any Defendant's expert reports, re: Class Certification, and any Daubert motions re expert opinions offered in support of class certification: Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file reply June 29, 2026 to motion for class certification, any Plaintiff's rebuttal expert reports, re: class certification, and any Daubert motions re expert opinions offered in opposition of class certification: Costco operates membership warehouses that offer a selection of branded and private label products. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PohCZi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com rsolomon@tousley.com - and - Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq. Ryan J. Ellersick, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 14648 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 130 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (480) 348-6400 E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com ryan.ellersick@zimmreed.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. Heather Lopez, Esq. Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com gabramson@milberg.com ahoneycutt@milberg.com - and - Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK RODOS & BACINE 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Courtney Maccarone, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com cmaccarone@zlk.com The Defendant is represented by: Kristin M. Asai, Esq. Ashley L. Shively, Esq. Rebecca G. Durham, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 601 SW Second Avenue, Suite 1800 Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone: (503) 243-2300 E-mail: kristin.asai@hklaw.com ashley.shively@hklaw.com rebecca.durham@hklaw.com DELTA AIR: Standing Order Entered in Gilkey Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOONYEEN GILKEY, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08690-AB-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge André Birotte Jr. entered a standing order as follows: The Plaintiff(s) shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 4(l). Any Defendant(s), including “DOE” or fictitiously named Defendant(s), not served within 90 days after the case is filed must be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). A party seeking any court order on any matter must include with their filing a Proposed Order setting forth the relief or action sought and a brief statement of the rationale for the decision with appropriate citations. See Local Rules 7-20, 52-4.1. Motions must be filed in accordance with Local Rules 6 and 7. Judge Birotte hears civil motions on Fridays beginning at 10:00 a.m. Ex parte applications are solely for extraordinary relief. Delta is a major airline in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tE6sZ3 at no extra charge.[CC] DEXCOM INC: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Adulterated Glucose Monitors ----------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that the maker of Dexcom G6 and G7 continuous glucose monitors faces a proposed class action lawsuit after receiving a Food and Drug Administration warning letter about an unapproved change in the material used to make the devices' sensors. The 23-page class action lawsuit against Dexcom, Inc. says that the change in materials to the G6 and G7 sensors caused them to have "considerably greater variability" than readings from sensors made with the previous FDA-approved material, causing higher risks for consumers who used the newer sensors. Per the case, the G6 and G7 continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) products—advertised as effective at monitoring a user's blood glucose levels in real time, without fingersticking or scanning, to warn if levels are too high or too low—were cleared by the FDA in March 2018 and December 2022, respectively. According to the lawsuit, however, in March 2025, after an inspection of the company's San Diego and Mesa, Arizona facilities, Dexcom received an FDA warning letter in which the agency contended that the glucose monitoring devices at issue were adulterated and misbranded due to certain "major changes or modifications" made without the submission of a new premarket notification as required by law. Per the complaint, the FDA said that Dexcom modified the critical G6 and G7 CGM sensors by replacing one of the materials used to make the sensors with a different one that the defendant claimed was equivalent to the former, i.e., the material used in the clinical studies submitted for the devices' FDA approval. However, the FDA noted that the company's own studies showed that the sensors made with the newer material performed worse, causing greater testing inaccuracies and consequently higher risks for patients who rely on the devices for diabetes treatment, the lawsuit relays. The suit contends that consumers who have purchased the Dexcom G6 and G7 CGMs have not received the benefit of their bargain and were misled into buying products whose quality and performance were inferior to what was advertised. "The Products are not as valuable as the prices Plaintiffs and Class members paid for them," the filing argues. The plaintiffs, Santa Clara County and Riverside County, California residents, claim to have experienced "incorrect readings" from the Dexcom G6 and G7 devices and sensors in comparison to manually taken blood sugar readings. The Dexcom class action lawsuit looks to cover all United States residents, including those of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, bought a Dexcom G6 and/or G7 continuous glucose monitoring device and/or sensor that was made using sensor materials different from that approved by the FDA. [GN] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Class Certification Bid Deadline Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, et al., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:25-cv-01694 (D.D.C., Filed May 29, 2025), the Hon. Judge Tanya S. Chutkan entered an order staying Plaintiffs' deadline to move for class certification and Defendant's deadline to respond to the Complaint. The parties shall submit a joint status report by October 10, 2025, either requesting a referral to mediation or proposing a schedule for this case going forward. The joint status report shall be accompanied by a proposed order. The nature of suit states American with Disabilities Act (ADA) District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River, bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia.[CC] DOORDASH ESSENTIALS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alagic Says ----------------------------------------------------------- INAL ALAGIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOORDASH ESSENTIALS, LLC, d/b/a DASHMART, Defendant, Case No. :25-cv-01136 (M.D. Tenn., Oct. 2, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Alagic was employed by the Defendant as an associate. Doordash Essentials, LLC, d/b/a Dashmart is a logistics platform that connects customers with local businesses, including restaurants, grocery stores, and convenience shops. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com DUKE CAPITAL: Court Narrows Claims in Castillo Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH CASTILLO, VIKTORIA SVENSSON, and ROBIN BEAN, v. DUKE CAPITAL, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00229-JNP-JCB (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Jill Parrish entered an order granting in part and denying in part Duke Capital's motion to dismiss. Pursuant to the Plaintiffs' stipulation Duke Capital's motion to dismiss is granted with respect to the Plaintiffs' intrusion upon seclusion and unjust enrichment claims. With respect to the Plaintiffs' remaining claims, Duke Capital's motion to dismiss is denied as untimely under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Duke Capital argues that it could not have raised its Rule 12(b) motion before its answer because it rests on Utah Court of Appeals cases decided after it filed its answer. But even if one accepts Duke Capital’s premise that Rule 12(b) only bars motions that could have been made before the party’s responsive pleading,4 the argument fails because it mischaracterizes the case law. None of the new appellate decisions cited by Duke Capital meaningfully supports its current Rule 12(b) motion. The court thus finds that the appellate decision in LeBaron does not support Duke Capital's motion, and Duke Capital had no reason to wait until LeBaron to bring its motion. Duke is an investment company that offers hybrid capital solutions to businesses. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gfYXxc at no extra charge.[CC] EI DU PONT: Plaintiffs Can Amend Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as S.A. by next friend SHANTELL ALLEN, et al., v. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND CO., et al. Case No. 2:22-cv-00359-PPS-AZ (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Abizer Zanzi entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' consent motion to amend/correct their motion to certify class and the Plaintiffs' amended memorandum in support of class certification shall be the operative brief in support of Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. Furthermore, given the complexity of the issues raised by the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, the deadline for the Defendants to respond under N.D. Ind. 7-1(d) shall not apply. The Court orders the parties to submit a Joint Statement proposing a timeline for conducting discovery and briefing relating to Plaintiffs' motion to certify class by Oct. 15, 2025. The Court will set this matter for a status hearing by separate order and in conjunction with the other unconsolidated but related cases. E. I. is a major American chemical company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NmZPsR at no extra charge.[CC] ELIZABETH CRAFT: Mackey Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- HUNTER MACKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELIZABETH CRAFT DESIGNS, INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-25-015125 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., October 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA). According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in an unlawful practice of transmitting a telephone number to the Caller ID services of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers that were not capable of receiving telephone calls. The Defendant's action is part of its marketing strategy to promote its product via text message sales calls. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful business practice, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages, says the suit. Elizabeth Craft Designs, Inc. is an online store owner and operator, doing business in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com EMPLOYBRIDGE: Faces McCutchen Suit Over Adverse Employment Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEMETRIUS MCCUTCHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EMPLOYBRIDGE, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01864-JFS (M.D. Pa., October 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of taking an adverse employment action based in whole or in part of consumer reports without first providing a copy of the report to prospective or current employees in violation of section 1681b(b)(3) of the FCRA. The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the FCRA. Employbridge is a foreign company doing business in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine Cline, Esq. Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. Richard Parks, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (929) 274-2944 Email: ccline@sirillp.com jwatkins@sirillp.com rparks@sirillp.com EN-R-G FOODS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Lewis Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- ADAM LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EN-R-G FOODS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-25-014970 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Oct. 1, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. EN-R-G Foods, LLC manufactures tomato products, tomato sauce, tomato paste, and catsup. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com EPOCH EVERLASTING: Must Oppose Renewed Class Cert Bid by Nov. 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Williene Jackson-Jones, v. Epoch Everlasting Play, LLC et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02567-ODW-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II entered an order the following briefing schedule for Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification: -- Deadline to file renewed motion for class certification: Oct. 9, 2025 -- Deadline to file opposition to renewed motion for class certification: Nov. 10, 2025 -- Deadline to file reply in support of renewed motion for class certification: Nov. 24, 2025 -- Hearing on renewed motion for class certification: Dec. 22, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. The stay that is currently in place shall remain in place pending resolution of the Plaintiff's forthcoming renewed motion for class certification. Within fourteen days of the Court's order on the renewed motion for class certification, the parties shall file a joint status report proposing briefing schedules for any anticipated motions and proposing trial and pre-trial dates. On Sept. 25, 2025, the Court received the Sept. 11, 2025, Mandate of the Ninth Circuit, vacating the Court's Order certifying a class that sought injunctive relief and restitution, and remanding to this Court for further proceedings. The Court spreads the mandate. Epoch is a manufacturer and distributor of entertaining products. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WWYqS2 at no extra charge.[CC] ESSA PHARMA: Faces O'Neil Shareholder Suit ------------------------------------------ ESSA Pharma Inc. disclosed in its September 30, 2025 Form 8-K report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 5, 2025, that a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in the Superior Court of the State of California County of San Mateo, captioned "Nathan O'Neil, et al. v. ESSA Pharma Inc." The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of a class of persons and/or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Common Shares between December 12, 2023 to October 31, 2024, alleges violations by the defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making material misstatements and/or omissions in the company's public statements with respect to its then-ongoing clinical trials of masofaniten (EPI-7386). ESSA is focused on the development of small molecule drugs for the treatment of prostate cancer. It is incorporated under the laws of the Province of British Columbia. EVENFLO COMPANY: Barraza Sues Over Sale of Defective Car Seats -------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE BARRAZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12914 (D. Mass., Oct. 6, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendant's improper sales and deceptive marketing of certain of its Gold Revolve360 Slim and Revolve360 Slim ("Products" or "Car Seats"), which are unreasonably dangerous and pose a heightened risk of choking hazard, all of which is undisclosed at the point of sale. According to the complaint, the Defendant recently recalled its Car Seats for an underlying defect: namely, the headrest cover is easily removable by infants and young children, exposing foam that presents a choking hazard to young children ("Defect"). The Defendant makes numerous misrepresentations concerning the safety of its Car Seats to increase profits and market share in the growing baby products market, where safety is a significant consumer purchasing decision. The Plaintiff and all reasonable consumers would not have purchased the Car Seats or paid less for them had they known that Evenflo's safety representations were false and misleading, says the suit. Evenflo Company, Inc. manufactures markets infant and juvenile products. The Company offers juvenile travel systems, car seats, strollers, child carriers, saucers, gates, jumpers, monitors, and oral development items. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Xenides, Esq. Mason A. Barney, Esq. Leslie Pescia, Esq. SIRI | GLIMSTAD 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (737) 313-8560 Email: cxenides@sirillp.com mbarney@sirillp.com lpescia@sirillp.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. Daniel Tomascik, Esq. Natalia Perez, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce DeLeon Suite 205 - #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com dtomascik@laukaitislaw.com nperez@laukaitislaw.com EVERCORE GROUP: Standing Order Entered in General Micro Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GENERAL MICRO SYSTEMS, INC., v. EVERCORE GROUP L.L.C., et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-02374-JGB-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Bernal entered a standing order as follows: The Plaintiff shall serve the Complaint promptly in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to L.R. 5−3.1. Any answers filed in state court must be re−filed in this Court (separately) as a supplement to the petition. Any pending motions must be re−noticed in accordance with L.R. 6−1. Under 28 U.S.C. section 636, the parties may consent to have a Magistrate Judge preside over all proceedings. The Magistrate Judges who accept those designations are identified on the Central District's website, which also contains the consent form. As of January 1, 2008, the United States District Court for the Central District of California implemented mandatory electronic filing ("e−filing") of documents in all new and pending civil cases. Information about the Court's Electronic Case Filing system is available on the Court's website at www.cacd.uscourts.gov/cmecf. Motions shall be filed and set for hearing in accordance with L.R. 6−1. Motions will be heard on Mondays commencing at 9:00 a.m. Any motion noticed for a holiday shall automatically be set to the next Monday without further notice to the parties. Evercore is a global independent investment banking firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=voSmS6 at no extra charge.[CC] EVOLUTION AB: Federal Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sonja Lindenberg, writing for NEXT.io, reports that on 5 September, a federal court dismissed with prejudice a securities fraud lawsuit brought by investors in unsponsored American Depository Receipts (ADRs) tied to Evolution's Stockholm-listed shares. With the following 30-day window to appeal now closed, the long-running case has officially concluded. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, initially accused Evolution CEO Martin Carlesund and former CFO Jacob Kaplan of misleading investors about the company's growth and its customers' regulatory compliance between 2019 and 2023. An April ruling had already dismissed all claims against Carlesund and Kaplan, leaving only the corporate entity as a defendant. 'Clear corporate separation' Investors had argued that Evolution should be liable under US securities law, despite being a Swedish entity, because its American subsidiaries allegedly acted as the company's "alter egos". However, in her ruling, Judge Mia Roberts Perez rejected that argument after months of jurisdictional discovery, finding that Evolution AB maintains "clear corporate separation" from its US subsidiaries. "Each subsidiary is separately incorporated, operates its own facilities in its respective jurisdiction, employs its own workforce, and maintains its own management team, with no shared officers or employees with Evolution AB since at least 2019," she said. "The subsidiaries handle their own operational, administrative, and commercial functions, including their own studios, marketing, legal, compliance, and finance departments. The subsidiaries contract directly with customers. "This structure, along with the absence of overlapping personnel, supports the conclusion that Evolution AB does not exercise the type of day-to-day control necessary to satisfy the alter-ego standard," she said. The judge concluded that Evolution and its subsidiaries have a standard parent–subsidiary relationship. Lack of jurisdiction As a result, the court dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, permanently ending the case. Judge Perez noted that the investors failed to show that the court had jurisdiction over the Swedish holding company or that it could be sued directly in Pennsylvania. They also could not demonstrate that their claims were attributable to any of Evolution's three subsidiaries with operations in the state. The plaintiffs had purchased unsponsored ADRs, which are certificates issued by US financial institutions allowing Americans to trade foreign shares without the company's involvement. Because Evolution neither authorised nor participated in issuing these ADRs, the court held that its limited US operations through subsidiaries did not establish jurisdiction. 'Another win' The case, filed by Oklahoma-based law firm Federman & Sherwood in January 2024, had drawn attention across the gaming and financial sectors. Among other claims, the class action highlighted a 2022 report released by Alpha Generation Limited, circulated among certain investors, which alleged that a portion of Evolution's revenue could be at risk due to future regulatory clampdowns and that the company had been exposed to revenues from what were believed to be illegal gambling activities. Following the report, Evolution's ADRs fell approximately 15%. Evolution CEO Martin Carlesund told NEXT.io that the expiry of the appeal deadline is "another win" for the company. In a separate development, the New Jersey Supreme Court let stand an order in Evolution's favour, which had required private intelligence firm Black Cube to disclose the secret client behind a 2021 attempt to discredit the company. The order marks the conclusion of Evolution's nearly five-year legal effort to identify the entity behind the 2021 "prohibited markets" report. The report, which temporarily wiped billions off Evolution's market value, has since been dismissed as unfounded by multiple regulators, including New Jersey's Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE). [GN] EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Court Grants Motion for Clarification in "Bowden" ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Garrett Bowden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Express Scripts, Inc., et al., Defendants, No. 3:25-cv-261 (W.D. Pa.), Judge Robert J. Colville of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted the Motion for Clarification filed by Defendants Express Scripts, Inc., Cigna Corporation, and Evernorth Health Services. The Court clarified that the ex parte preliminary injunctive relief obtained by the Plaintiff from the Cambria County Court of Common Pleas had expired by its own terms and the Court's prior statement suggesting the order remained in effect was incorrect as a matter of law. The procedural background shows that prior to removal, the Plaintiff, acting ex parte, filed and obtained immediate preliminary injunctive relief from the Cambria County Court of Common Pleas. The court's order provided: Accordingly, the Defendants are directed by the Court not to terminate Martella's Pharmacies from their network of pharmacies and maintain the status quo with Martella's Pharmacies until further Order of Court. The matter was removed before a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction was scheduled to take place. The Moving Defendants filed a Motion for Clarification arguing that the ex parte preliminary injunctive relief obtained by the Plaintiff at state court had expired under its own terms. The Plaintiff opposed the Motion for Clarification, arguing that this Court ruled that the preliminary injunctive relief remains in effect. He further argued that the Moving Defendants' own actions in removing this matter prevented a scheduled hearing from taking place, that a scheduling issue and strategy should not result in the dissolution of lawfully obtained injunctive relief, and that there is good cause to keep the injunctive relief in place at this time. The Court found that its statement that the state court preliminary injunctive relief order remained in effect was not pertinent to this Court's consideration of the Motion to Remand, and was merely a part of this Court's factual recitation of the background of this case. More importantly, the statement was not a ruling, and was simply incorrect as a matter of law. The Court noted that the ex parte preliminary injunctive relief order expired as a matter of state law on August 20, 2025, and certainly no later than a federal injunction would have expired on September 2, 2025. The Plaintiff did not seek, and the Court did not grant, an extension of the ex parte injunctive relief order before the order expired as a matter of law under both the state and federal rules. Accordingly, the order had expired at least two weeks before the Court issued its Memorandum Order on the Motion to Remand. The Court explained that injunctions have no greater effect after removal to federal court than they would have had if the case had remained in state court, so an ex parte temporary restraining order issued by a state court prior to removal remains in force after removal no longer than it would have remained in effect under state law. The order becomes subject to the fourteen-day limit on ex parte temporary restraining orders in Federal Rule 65(b). Because the injunction order expired by its own terms before any extension was sought, there is nothing to extend at this point, as the prior injunctive relief order is, and was at the time of the Court's misstatement, dissolved as a matter of law. The Court noted that the Plaintiff has expressed a clear intention to seek injunctive relief before this Court and has filed an Amended Complaint in an apparent attempt to address the issues raised by this Court in its Memorandum Order addressing the Plaintiff's remand request. This Memorandum Order is entered without prejudice to the Plaintiff pursuing injunctive relief before this Court. While the Moving Defendants and the non-moving Defendants are not presently subject to an injunctive relief order, they proceed at their own peril should they take action and should this or another court eventually grant injunctive relief consistent with the Plaintiff's requests. Therefore, the Motion for Clarification was granted. In the interest of correcting a clear misstatement made in dicta in its prior Memorandum Order, the Court clarified that the order granting preliminary injunctive relief issued by the Cambria County Court of Common Pleas expired prior to the Court's September 16, 2025 Memorandum Order and was not extended prior to expiration. The Court's prior misstatement was not intended to, and does not, have any legal effect. A copy of the Court's order dated 14th October is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TK2HmJ from PacerMonitor.com FAIRLIFE LLC: Navigators Seeks Declaratory Judgment in Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- NAVIGATORS INSURANCE COMPANY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FAIRLIFE, LLC; MIKE MCCLOSKEY; SUE MCCLOSKEY; ARYOUT MICHAEL THOMAS BHOTIWIHOK; JEREMIAH CORNELIUS; and RANDY PAUGH, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-12126 (N.D. Ill., October 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for declaratory judgment. The class action complaint seeks declaratory judgment that pursuant to the Plaintiff's contracts with Fairlife, it owes no coverage for the lawsuit entitled In Re: Fairlife Milk Products Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 19-cv-3924, under any insurance policy that it issued. Accordingly, the Plaintiff owes no duty to defend or indemnify Fairlife, or any other person or entity, in connection with the 2025 Litigation. Navigators Insurance Company is an insurance company, with its principal place of business in Connecticut. Fairlife, LLC is a nutrition company, with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Milad Emam, Esq. Ranjini S. Rajan, Esq. BATESCAREY LLP 191 North Wacker, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 762-3100 Facsimile: (312) 762-3200 Email: memam@batescarey.com rrajan@batescarey.com FORTRA LLC: Claimants to Get Free Dark Web Monitoring in Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a federal judge has granted final approval to a $20 million class action settlement in a Fortra data breach class action lawsuit. Why: The settlement resolves allegations that a data breach involving Fortra's GoAnywhere MFT software exposed the personal information of millions of individuals. Where: The Fortra data breach class action settlement was approved in Florida federal court. A Florida federal judge has granted final approval to a $20 million class action settlement resolving claims that a data breach involving Fortra's GoAnywhere MFT software exposed the personal information of millions of individuals. U.S. District Judge Rodolfo Ruiz of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued an order Sept. 17 granting final approval to the Fortra data breach class action settlement filed by multiple individuals whose personal health information was stolen by the Clop ransomware group in 2023 and sold on the dark web. The settlement is in addition to a $7 million settlement approved in February between a subclass of individuals and Brightline Inc. The Fortra data breach occurred in January 2023 and was believed to be the work of the Clop ransomware group, according to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and lasted about 10 days. CISA said the breach affected about 130 organizations that use Fortra's GoAnywhere MFT software. At least two dozen lawsuits were filed in multiple states and consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the Southern District of Florida in February 2024. In addition to Fortra, other defendants in the MDL are Aetna Inc., Community Health Systems and NationsBenefits LLC. The companies were accused of failing to adequately protect the private information of the class members. The settlement includes an all-cash fund of $20 million that will be used to pay class member benefits, attorney fees and administration costs. As part of the settlement, defendants Fortra, NationsBenefits, Intellihartx LLC, Imagine360 LLC and Community Health Systems provided attestations confirming they have enhanced the security of their systems to protect against future cybersecurity breaches. Class members will be able to get free dark web monitoring In addition to the monetary damages awarded, the settlement gives class members the option to choose dark web monitoring, except for the Brightline subclass members, who previously elected to receive credit monitoring under their settlement, according to Judge Ruiz's order. Each settlement class member has the option to receive up to $5,000 for documented losses, or they may choose to receive a flat cash payment of $85, according to the order. Judge Ruiz said the Brightline subclass members can only receive settlement benefits if they weren't fully compensated under the Brightline settlement. He also awarded attorney fees equal to 33.33% of the $20 million settlement, or $6,666,666. In addition, roughly $2.3 million was awarded to class counsel in the $7 million settlement in February, according to Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow PA, who represents the class. More than $263,800 was also awarded for reasonable litigation costs. The Fortra data breach class action lawsuit is In re: Fortra File Transfer Software Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 1:24-md-03090, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. [GN] GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces Class Action Over Fatal Accident in Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hilka Birns, writing for CH-Aviation, reports that Hop-A-Jet Worldwide Jet Charter (HPJ, Fort Lauderdale Executive) and affiliated companies have filed a U.S. class-action lawsuit accusing General Electric, Bombardier Aerospace, Learjet, and other aviation service providers of negligence and concealment related to a fatal 2024 accident near Naples Municipal in Florida, which killed two of the airline's pilots. According to the details of the claim filed at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Challenger 604 N823KD (msn 5584) operated by Hop-A-Jet suffered a dual engine failure on February 9, 2024, allegedly due to corrosion in its General Electric CF34-3B engines. The experienced pilots, Edward Daniel Murphy and Ian Frederick Hofmann, attempted an emergency landing on the Interstate 75 highway on approach to the airport but were killed, while two passengers, a cabin crew member, and bystanders survived. The lawsuit was filed on September 26, 2025, by Hop-A-Jet, its wholly-owned subsidiary and Part 135 operator ACE Aviation Service, and aircraft owner East Shore Aviation against General Electric Company, GE Aerospace, Bombardier Inc., Bombardier Aerospace Corp., Learjet Inc., Turbine Engine Specialist Inc., and Nebraska-based maintenance provider Duncan Aviation Inc. The plaintiffs claim that General Electric was aware since at least 2019 that a key variable guide vane (VGV) system in the CF34 engine family is prone to hidden corrosion, causing compressor stalls and engine failures. They accuse General Electric of covering up the engine failure risks and limiting corrosion coverage in its service contracts instead of warning the plaintiffs or improving maintenance procedures. "The cause of the catastrophe was a 'non-recoverable dual rotating compressor stall' arising from corrosion to the variable guide vane (VGV) systems of the CF34-3B engines powering the aircraft. GE designed and manufactured its CF34 family of engines without external lubrication access and with restricted inspection capability that increased the risk of VGV corrosion and allowed VGV corrosion to go undetected and, if detected, to be unreported," the claim reads. The suit also targets Bombardier Aerospace and the maintenance firms, alleging they missed or failed to report signs of corrosion despite inspections, leading to certification of the jet as airworthy when it was not. The plaintiffs accuse the defendants of prioritising profits over safety. On October 6, the court granted the defendants an unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to the class action complaint, allowing General Electric to respond by November 24, 2025, while GE Aerospace is due to respond by October 14, 2025, and Duncan Aviation on October 8, 2025. The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has made the docket of the accident publicly available but has yet to finalise its report. In reaction, a GE Aerospace spokesperson said: "We are deeply saddened by the accident and extend our heartfelt sympathies to the families and loved ones of those involved. Safety is our first priority, and our technical teams are supporting our customer and the National Transportation Safety Board's ongoing investigation." Bombardier, in a statement shared with CH-Aviation, said: "Bombardier remains deeply saddened by this tragic event and our thoughts remain with those affected by this accident. We continue to fully support the authorities with their investigation and to cooperate as needed. We will refrain from comment on ongoing litigation." [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Barron Sues Over Master Brake Cylinder Defect ------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC BARRON; and CHELSEY THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-05696 (E.D. Pa., Oct. 2, 2025) alleges violation of the Pennsylvania Lemon Law, and New York Lemon Law. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendants sells 2025 Chevrolet Traverse, 2025 GMC Acadia, 2025 Buick Enclave, 2025 Chevrolet Colorado, and 2025 GMC Canyon vehicles (the "Class Vehicles") that contain defective master brake cylinder assemblies. The defective master brake cylinder assemblies fail abruptly and without warning soon after vehicle delivery, and lead to partial or total loss of braking (the "Master Cylinder Defect" or the "Defect"). When the Defect manifests, the vehicle instrument cluster displays numerous warning lights, including red "Brake" warning light, and the Anti-lock Brake System (ABS) warning light, and displays "Service Brake System" message, says the suit. General Motors Company designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks, crossovers, and automobile parts. The Company offers vehicle protection, parts, accessories, maintenance, satellite radio, and automotive financing services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com GEO GROUP: Ronduen Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ligaya Ronduen et al., v. The Geo Group, Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-00481-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order as follows: (1) denying-in-part and granting-in-part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification; (2) granting Parties' Ex Parte Applications to File Under Seal; (3) granting the Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Exceed Page Limit; and (4) Vacating the Sept. 29, 2025. The Court grants in part the Plaintiffs' motion as to the General Causation Issue Class. This issue class is limited to the evaluation of what, if any, symptoms can result from exposure to specific levels to HDQ Neutral. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: "All persons who were detained at Adelanto Detention Center between Feb. 2020 through Nov. 1, 2020 that were exposed to HDQ Neutral." In the alternative, Plaintiffs seek to certify issue classes for negligence liability ("Negligence Liability Issue Class"), general causation ("General Causation Issue Class"), fraud ("Fraud Issue Class"), failure-to-warn ("Failure-to-Warn Issue Class"), design defect ("Design Defect Issue Class"), and availability of punitive damages ("Punitive Damages Issue Class"). GEO is a publicly traded C corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HYfiLY at no extra charge.[CC] GERBER PAYROLL: Coghill Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as KENNETH COGHILL individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GERBER PAYROLL SERVICES, a Delaware Corporation; and JOSH LIGER, in his individual capacity; BOYD SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 25-2-23407-0, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on October 8, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01953 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's individual complaint sets forth three causes of action: (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (2) disability discrimination and failure to accommodate a disability; and (3) retaliation. Gerber Payroll Services is a Delaware corporation which has its principal place of business in Elmhurst, Illinois. Josh Liger is a citizen of the state of Washington. Boyd Services Group, Inc. is a Canadian corporation which has its principal place of business in Winnipeg, Manitoba.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Breanne Sheetz Martell, Esq. Madhura Panjini, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101.3122 Telephone: 206-623-3300 Facsimile: 206-447-6965 E-mail: bsmartell@littler.com mpanjini@littler.com GRUMA CORPORATION: Gomez Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JORGE NAVA GOMEZ, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRUMA CORPORATION, a Texas corporation; HITZAYALA HERNANDEZ, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CV140153, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Alameda to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on October 8, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-08629 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claims for: (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest periods; (5) waiting time penalties; (6) wage statement violations; (7) failure to timely pay wages; (8) violation of Quota Laws; and (9) unfair competition. Gruma Corporation has been incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada with its principal place of business, and the location where its officers direct, control, and coordinate its corporate activities, in Irving, Texas. Hitzayala Hernandez is a Human Resources Manager of Gruma.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Dan M. Forman, Esq. Wanja S. Guy, Esq. CDF LABOR LAW LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 5150 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 612-6300 E-mail: dforman@cdflaborlaw.com wguy@cdflaborlaw.com HAITECH WORKS: "Lozada" Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Brandon Alfonso Campos Lozada, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Haitech Works LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-01041 (AMN/DJS) (N.D.N.Y.), Judge Anne M. Nardacci of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York denied the Plaintiff's motion for default judgment and dismissed the Complaint without prejudice. On August 23, 2024, Plaintiff Brandon Alfonso Campos Lozada commenced this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and the New York Labor Law, Section 190 et seq., seeking money damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Defendant Haitech Works LLC is a limited liability company with a principal place of business in Albany, New York, primarily engaged in the operation of a construction business. Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant who was employed from January 2023 to August 2023 as a construction worker. His primary job duties included carrying materials, removing debris, and other similarly related duties of a general construction worker. Plaintiff styled his action as a collective action pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA seeking to recover damages pursuant to the FLSA and as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to recover damages pursuant to the NYLL. However, after receiving approval to conduct pre-appearance discovery and pursuing the same, Plaintiff opted to proceed on an individual basis while reserving the right to proceed on a collective and/or class basis in the event that Defendant appears in the action. Plaintiff now seeks a default judgment on an individual basis regarding his FLSA and NYLL claims. Defendant was served on or about August 28, 2024, via its registered agent, Registered Agents Inc., located at 418 Broadway, Suite R, Albany, New York 12207. Despite service, Defendant has failed to respond to the Complaint or enter an appearance. On October 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of a certificate of default pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), which the Clerk of Court granted. The Court found that federal question jurisdiction exists over Plaintiff's FLSA claim and supplemental jurisdiction exists over Plaintiff's NYLL claims. Moreover, the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Haitech Works is a New York Limited Liability Company with a principal place of business in Albany, New York. The Court found that Plaintiff properly requested and obtained entry of a certificate of default by presenting the materials required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) and Local Rule 55.1. Accordingly, the Court found that Plaintiff has complied with the procedural requirements for seeking a default judgment. Regarding enterprise coverage, the Court noted that an employer is an enterprise engaged in commerce if it is an enterprise that has employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person and has an annual gross volume of sales made or business done of not less than $500,000. Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, at all relevant times, is an employer of Plaintiff, as defined by 29 U.S.C. Section 203(d). The Court found that Plaintiff's assertion that Defendant is an employer subject to the FLSA is a legal conclusion and, therefore, not automatically assumed to be true. The Court noted that when the complaint makes no mention of an enterprise's gross annual sales or business, and a plaintiff fails to allege specific facts demonstrating that the enterprise meets the $500,000 gross annual sales or business threshold, courts have found such bare allegations insufficient. The Court concluded that the Complaint is silent with respect to Defendant's gross annual revenue sales and Plaintiff alleged no specific facts to meet the $500,000 annual gross business requirement. Accordingly, the Court found that Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently plead that Defendant Haitech Works is an enterprise engaged in commerce as defined by the FLSA. Regarding individual coverage, the Court stated that in the alternative, Plaintiff may establish that he was personally engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for interstate commerce, as distinguished from someone who merely affected that commerce. The Court must focus on the activities of the employees and not on the business of the employer by conducting a fact-specific inquiry into the employment actions of each and every employee asserting a claim under the FLSA. As a basic rule, if the plaintiff did not have any contact with out-of-state customers or businesses, he cannot be individually covered under the FLSA. The Court found that Plaintiff has not pled that he was engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. The Complaint only states that Plaintiff is a general worker employed by Defendant, whose primary job duties were to perform general worker duties, carry materials, remove debris, and other similarly related duties. The Complaint fails to provide additional facts such as the locations of the sites Plaintiff worked, whether Plaintiff traveled outside of New York as part of his job, whether he had any contact with out-of-state customers or businesses, or whether the tools or materials he used were delivered from outside New York State. Without any factual allegations describing the performance of work involving or relating to the movement of persons or goods between states, Plaintiff fails to establish that he was personally engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, as defined by the FLSA. Therefore, the Court found that Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to establish that Defendant is an employer subject to the FLSA. Accordingly, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to establish the threshold requirements for an FLSA claim against Defendant, and thus, Plaintiff's FLSA claim is dismissed without prejudice. Regarding supplemental jurisdiction, the Court stated that whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367 is within the sound discretion of the district court. A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims among nondiverse parties where it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Here, federal question jurisdiction exists over Plaintiff's FLSA claim, and supplemental jurisdiction exists over Plaintiff's NYLL claims. Because Plaintiff failed to demonstrate an element of his FLSA claim, only his NYLL claims remain. By declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction at the default judgment stage, the Court chooses not to decide the merits of Plaintiff's NYLL claims to avoid needless decisions of state law. Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for entry of default judgment against Defendant and dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice. The Court ordered that Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days of this Memorandum-Decision and Order. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7JCLYa from PacerMonitor.com HATSUHANA OF USA: Faces Limsuvanrot Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------ SURIMASS LIMSUVANROT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HATSUHANA OF U.S.A., INC. and KEITA SATO, and KIKUZO SHIRAISHI, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08249 (S.D.N.Y., October 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a food server since July 2018. Hatsuhana of U.S.A, Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street, 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 Email: pcooper@jcpclaw.com HEALTH FIRST: Seeks to File Reply Memo Under Seal ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA POWERS and CHRISTINA ROSEAN, v. HEALTH FIRST, INC., Case No. 6:23-cv-00375-JSS-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion to file under seal reply memorandum in support of its motion to exclude the opinions of the Plaintiffs' proposed expert on class certification issues. The Defendant seeks leave to file under seal its Reply, which will be filed publicly in redacted form, with only limited redactions to protect certain highly commercially sensitive and HIPAA-protected information, and which is attached without redactions. Health First requests that the Court grant leave to seal the material described above for the pendency of this action, including any appeals, or until further order, and to destroy it only upon the expiration of any appeals. Sealing this item is necessary to protect certain HIPAA-protected information and certain highly commercially sensitive information from public disclosure, including the competitors of the payers, in accordance with designations of those documents as Confidential and Confidential -- Attorneys' Eyes Only pursuant to the Confidentiality Agreement entered in this case. The Defendant is a fully integrated health system. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I0alIJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen Berry, Esq. BERRY LAW LLC 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 296-1212 E-mail: Sberry@berrylawpllc.com - and - Tucker H. Byrd, Esq. BYRD CAMPBELL, P.A. 180 Park Avenue North, Ste 2A Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 392-2285 E-mail: Tbyrd@byrdcampbell.com - and - Ronald G. Meyer, Esq. MEYER, BLOHM AND POWELL, P.A. Tallahassee, FL 32302 Telephone: (850) 878-5212 E-mail: rmeyer@meyerblohmlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Elizabeth B. Honkonen, Esq. Richard Alan Arnold, Esq. Allison G. Margolies, Esq. Campbell Haynes, Esq. SPERLING KENNY NACHWALTER, LLC Four Seasons Tower - Suite 1100 1441 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 373-1000 E-mail: ebh@sperlingkenny.com rarnold@sperlingkenny.com amargolies@sperlingkenny.com chaynes@sperlingkenny.com HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Class Settlement in Story Suit Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAX STORY, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-00724-TJC-SJH (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Corrigan entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement and plaintiffs and class counsel's petition for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs Max Story and Nancy Murrey-Settle are appointed as Class Representatives. 2. The Court appoints the following counsel to serve as Class Counsel: Jason L. Lichtman of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; Janet Varnell and Brian Warwick of Varnell & Warwick, P.A.; and Lisa R. Considine and David J. DiSabato of Nagel Rice LLP. 3. For purposes of the Settlement and this Final Approval Order, the Settlement Class is defined as: "All natural persons who enrolled in MySchoolBucks and paid Program Fees to Heartland on credit or debit card "Meals" transactions between June 18, 2013 and July 31, 2019, except those whose last transaction occurred before Jan. 1, 2015." 4. The Court grants attorneys' fees to Class Counsel in the amount of $4,562,500. 5. The Court grants Plaintiffs and Class Counsel's request for reimbursement of out-of-pocket litigation expenses in the amount of $547,500. Heartland provides bank card-based payment processing services to small-and medium-sized merchants. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nRmukF at no extra charge.[CC] INTERPLAY LEARNING: Website Illegally Collects Data, Allen Says --------------------------------------------------------------- FORREST ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERPLAY LEARNING, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-08628 (N.D. Cal., October 8, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for the installation and use of data broker software without obtaining consent, in violation of the California Trap and Trace Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant uses the data broker software on its website to secretly collect data about the website visitors' computer, location, and browsing habits. The software then compiles this data and correlates that data with extensive external records it already has about most Californians in order to learn the identity of the website user. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff maintains reasonable expectations of privacy when browsing websites but the Defendant systematically violated these expectations through its unauthorized surveillance activities. The Plaintiff identifies Doe Defendants 1 through 15 as unknown entities that Defendant directed and controlled to participate in implementing or maintaining Defendant's system. Each Doe Defendant acted as Defendant's agent or employee in Defendant's implementation of the surveillance scheme described herein. Each Doe Defendant operated within the scope of its relationship with Defendant and participated with Defendant in the common plan to unlawfully track California residents for Defendant's commercial gain, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Forrest Allen is a citizen of California residing and located within the Northern District of California. Interplay Learning is a Delaware corporation that owns, operates, and/or controls https://www.interplaylearning.com/ offering its customers an educational platform to train individuals or employees in such areas as plumbing, electrical services, facilities maintenance, HVAC, and CHVAC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com eshapiro@taulersmith.com IRON HILL: May Face Suit Over Closure Without Notice to Employees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Ferguson, writing for WDEL.com, reports that a Pennsylvania law firm is investigating a potential class action lawsuit against Iron Hill Brewery & Restaurant after the company abruptly closed all of its locations on Sept. 25 with little or no notice to employees, according to workers CoastTV spoke with. The firm, Sauder Schelkopf, is exploring whether Iron Hill violated the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, which requires employers with 100 or more full-time workers to provide 60 days' written notice before mass layoffs or business closures. Just over a week after the shutdown, Iron Hill filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on Oct. 4, initiating a full liquidation of the company. "I found out three hours before coming in for my shift," said Daniel Hazard, who had worked as a server at Iron Hill since October 2024. "Everyone was shocked and disappointed." Hazard added, "I actually have already submitted my information to the law firm." If the company is found to have violated the WARN Act, former employees could be entitled to up to 60 days of back pay and benefits, according to the Sauder Schelkopf website. Iron Hill was owned by A&M Capital, a multi-strategy private equity investment firm. A&M Capital declined to comment when asked about the closures or the potential class action investigation. CoastTV reached out to the Delaware Restaurant Association for insight into why Iron Hill went bankrupt. However, the association stated it did not know the reason behind the closure. CoastTV also contacted the law firm Sauder Schelkopf to ask how many former employees had reached out. The firm responded, "We do not currently have a case on file." [GN] JADE LEAF: Moran Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store --------------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON MORAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JADE LEAF, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08191 (S.D.N.Y., October 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, and New York State General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.jadeleafmatcha.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text equivalent, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Jade Leaf, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal JASPER THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises Jasper Therapeutics, Inc., ("Jasper" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: JSPR) investors of a class action on behalf of investors that bought securities between November 30, 2023 and July 3, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Jasper investors have until November 18, 2025 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by phone 844-767-8529 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss their legal rights, or join the case via https://portnoylaw.com/jasper. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for pursuing claims to recover their losses. On July 7, 2025, Jasper issued a press release "reporting updated data from Company's BEACON Phase 1b/2a study of subcutaneous briquilimab in adult participants with CSU and providing an update on the program." The press release stated that "[r]esults from the 240mg Q8W and the 240mg followed by 180mg Q8W dose cohorts appear to be confounded by an issue with one drug product lot used in those cohorts, with 10 of the 13 patients dosed with drug from the lot in question. The Company is investigating the drug product lot in question and expects to have the results of that investigation in the coming weeks." On this news, Jasper's stock price fell $3.73 per share, or 55.1%, to close at $3.04 per share on July 7, 2025. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. PORTNOY LAW (310) 692-8883 lesley@portnoylaw.com www.portnoylaw.com [GN] JEFF PAT: Agrees to Settle Undisclosed Wages' Suit for $900,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Jeff, Pat, Chris LLC, doing business as Domino's and Domino's Pizza, agreed to a $900,000 class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to disclose wage scales and salary ranges in job postings. The settlement benefits individuals who applied for a job opening in Washington with Domino's Pizza between Jan. 1, 2023, and Aug. 22, 2025, where the job posting did not disclose the wage scale or salary range for the position. Jeff, Pat, Chris is a family-owned Domino's Pizza franchise group operating over 40 stores across Washington and Oregon. Founded by Jeff and his sons Pat and Chris, the company manages hiring and operations independently from Domino's corporate. According to a class action lawsuit, Jeff, Pat, Chris failed to disclose wage scales and salary ranges in job postings for positions in Washington. Plaintiffs in the case say that the company's failure to disclose this information violated Washington law. Washington law requires employers to disclose wage scales and salary ranges in job postings. The law also requires employers to provide this information to applicants and employees upon request. The Jeff, Pat, Chris franchise has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $900,000 to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Domino's Pizza settlement, class members can receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. According to the settlement website, each class member is estimated to receive $95.35. Exact payments may be higher or lower depending on the number of participating class members. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Oct. 30, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Domino's Pizza settlement is scheduled for Dec. 12, 2025. No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive settlement benefits. Who's Eligible Individuals who applied for a job opening in Washington with Jeff, Pat, Chris LLC, Farmer Pies Inc. and/or Farmer Co-op LLC between Jan. 1, 2023, and Aug. 22, 2025, where the job posting did not disclose the wage scale or salary range for the position. Potential Award $95.35 (estimated) Proof of Purchase No proof of purchase is required Claim Form Deadline 10/30/2025 Case Name Corwin, et al. v. Jeff, Pat, Chris LLC, et al., Case No. 25-2-05696-1 SEA, in the Washington Superior Court for King County Final Hearing 12/12/2025 Settlement Website JPCLEPOASettlement.com Claims Administrator Corwin v. Jeff, Pat, Chris LLC, et al. c/o Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 26170 Santa Ana, CA 92799 info@JPCLEPOASettlement.com (844) 496-1145 Class Counsel: Timothy W. Emery Patrick B. Reddy Paul Cipriani EMERY REDDY PLLC Defense Counsel: Darren Feider SEBRIS BUSTO JAMES [GN] JULIANNA RAE: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Davis Says --------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JULIANNA RAE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12106 (N.D. Ill., October 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, declaratory relief, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.juliannarae.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of descriptive alt-text on graphics, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that some actions to be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Julianna Rae, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 554-0237 Email: dreyes@ealg.law KBR INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in S.D. Tex. ----------------------------------------------------------- A new class-action lawsuit is targeting KBR, Inc. (NYSE: KBR), alleging the company made misleading statements to investors in the weeks leading up to the abrupt cancellation of a major military contract. The suit, Norrman v. KBR, Inc., et al., No. 4:25-cv-04464 (S.D. Tex.), was filed after the company's stock plunged following the termination of a multi-billion-dollar deal. National shareholders rights firm Hagens Berman urges KBR investors who suffered substantial losses to submit your losses now. The firm also encourages persons with knowledge who may be able to assist in the investigation to contact its attorneys. Class Period: May 6, 2025-June 19, 2025 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Nov. 18, 2025 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/kbr Contact the Firm Now: KBR@hbsslaw.com (844) 916-0895 KBR, Inc. (KBR) Securities Class Action: The legal action seeks to represent shareholders who purchased KBR securities between May 6, 2025, and June 19, 2025. It claims that KBR executives provided a falsely optimistic outlook on a crucial partnership just as it was on the verge of collapse. The litigation stems from the Department of Defense U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) canceling its global household goods contract with HomeSafe Alliance LLC, a joint venture led by KBR. The decision, announced on June 20, 2025, caused KBR shares to fall over 7% as investors reacted to the loss of a contract valued at up to $20 billion over a potential nine-year term. The suit highlights a key discrepancy: on May 6, 2025, during its Q1 earnings call, KBR assured investors that the HomeSafe partnership was "strong" and "excellent" and that the company was "very confident in the future of this program." However, just weeks later, on June 19, 2025, HomeSafe disclosed that TRANSCOM had terminated the contract for cause. The termination reportedly came after months of operational issues, including chronic delays, missed pickups, and a rise in complaints about damaged goods. The complaint alleges that KBR was aware of TRANSCOM's material concerns but chose to conceal them from investors. The lawsuit argues that this misrepresentation led to the significant financial losses suffered by shareholders. "We're focused on whether KBR may have intentionally misled investors about the true status of the relationship with TRANSCOM and the contract," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding KBR should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email KBR@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation firm focusing on corporate accountability. The firm is home to a robust practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and other wrongdoings. Hagens Berman's team has secured more than $2.9 billion in this area of law. More about the firm and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. [GN] KENVUE BRANDS: Blind Users Can't Access Websites, McCormick Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ GRACE MCCORMICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KENVUE BRANDS LLC, d/b/a www.aveeno.com, www.listerine.com, and www.ogxbeauty.com, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08257 (S.D.N.Y., October 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its websites to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's websites, www.aveeno.com, www.listerine.com, and www.ogxbeauty.com, contain access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The Defendant's websites are not compatible with screen-reading software, which hindered blind users to browse products or complete transactions independently. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Kenvue Brands LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschoenfeld@employeejustice.com KRISTI NOEM: Court Sets Hearing on Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUNA GUTIERREZ, et al., v. KRISTI NOEM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01766 (D.D.C., Filed June 4, 2025), the Hon. Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan entered an order setting hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The suit alleges violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Kristi Noem is an American politician serving since 2025 as the 8th United States secretary of homeland security.[CC] LAMB WESTON: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit ------------------------------------------------ Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended August 24, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 30, 2025, that it is facing a November 2024 consolidated complaint alleging misrepresentations and omissions regarding the design and implementation of its enterprise resource planning system and the company's pricing practices. In June 2024, two putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho against the company and certain of its current and former executive officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The lawsuits were consolidated in November 2024. The amended consolidated complaint asserts claims on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers of the company's common stock between July 25, 2023 and December 19, 2024. On April 25, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Briefing is complete but no hearing date has been set. Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. is a global producer, distributor, and marketer of value-added frozen potato products and is headquartered in Eagle, Idaho. LANDS' END: Filing for Bid to Dismiss Due Nov. 7, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Juan Plata, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Lands' End, Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-00723-MEMF-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Frimpong entered an order granting joint stipulation to extend deadlines: -- The new filing deadline for any responsive pleading and/or motion to dismiss shall be Nov. 7, 2025 -- The new filing deadline for an opposition to a motion to dismiss, if any, shall be Dec. 5, 2025. Lands' is an American retailer of clothing, baggage, and furniture. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MuxelZ at no extra charge.[CC] LEGAL CONCIERGE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Andersen Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ KYLE ANDERSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEGAL CONCIERGE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01073-SDJ (E.D. Tex., Oct. 2, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Andersen was employed by the Defendant as a consultant. Legal Concierge, Inc. is a full service legal support service team. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com LIGHTHOUSE ELECTRIC: Class Cert Filing in Brown Due May 29, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILBUR BROWN; et al., v. LIGHTHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00362-NR (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan entered a case management order as follows: The parties shall file an amended ADR stipulation setting forth the specific date of the mediation session, the name of the mediator, and the party representatives who will attend by Oct. 2, 2025. Initial disclosures required by Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be made by Sept. 29, 2025. Fact and expert discovery related to class certification shall be completed by May 1, 2026. The parties shall file a joint motion for entry of protective order by Oct. 24, 2025. Motion for class certification is due by May 29, 2026. Response is due by July 10, 2026, and reply, if any, is due by Aug. 21, 2026. Lighthouse offers a range of customized electrical services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eLRVCA at no extra charge.[CC] LVNV FUNDING: Shaw Seeks Class Certifications --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETSY SHAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LVNV FUNDING, LLC, a foreign limited liability co., and LLOYD & MCDANIEL, PLLC d/b/a LLOYD & MCDANIEL, PLC, a foreign limited liability co., Case No. 4:24-cv-00205-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying case as a Class Action on behalf of Florida borrowers to whom Defendants LVNV Funding, LLC, and Lloyd & McDaniel, PLLC have violated their rights under federal law. The Plaintiff affirmatively satisfies the requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) for the Class; class certification is therefore appropriate, the suit says. The Plaintiff brought this action challenging two specific documents filed in the underlying Debt Collection Lawsuit as false and misleading: (1) the Affidavit signed by Felicia Richardson, and (2) the Verified Motion for Summary Disposition signed under oath and penalty of perjury by L&M attorney, Haidan Huang, Esq. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and proposed class (the "MSD Class") defined as: "The 128 Florida consumers identified by L&M who (1) from the beginning of the limitations period to the present: (2) were sued by LVNV, (3) in which suit, a L&M attorney submitted a verified filing (on LVNV's behalf) materially identical to the Verified MSD, in which the L&M attorney verified under penalties of perjury pursuant to Fla. Stat. section 92.525." The relevant class period is March 27, 2024, through the date of Notice for the Class. This action meets all requirements for class certification in Rule 23. LVNV is in the debt collection business. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eDvdhP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC 2277 Lee Road, Suite B Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (321) 447-6461 E-mail: joshua@jacobsonphillips.com - and - G. Tyler Bannon, Esq. BANNON LAW GROUP 1901 Dr. M.L. King Jr. Street N. St. Petersburg, FL 33704 Telephone: (727) 896-4455 Facsimile: (727) 895-1312 E-mail: tyler@rbannonlaw.com jessica@rbannonlaw.com - and - Aaron M. Swift, Esq. SWIFT LAW PLLC 11300 4th St. N., St. 260 St. Petersburg, FL 33716 Telephone: (727) 490-9919 E-mail: aswift@swift-law.com MACY'S RETAIL: Stover Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as BOBBY STOVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a MACY'S, an Ohio limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 25-2-07956-31, was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for the County of Snohomish to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on October 8, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01951 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff filed this putative class action complaint for unpaid wages, and sets forth the following purported eight claims for relief: (1) failure to provide rest periods; (2) failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to pay overtime wages; (4) payment of wages less than entitled; (5) failure to accrue and allow use of paid sick leave; (6) unlawful deductions and rebates; (7) failure to pay all wages due at termination; and (8) willful refusal to pay wages. Macy's Retail Holdings, LLC operates as a department store holding company based in Ohio.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Brian K. Keeley, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 520 Pike Street, Suite 2300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 802-3802 E-mail: Brian.Keeley@jacksonlewis.com MADISON CHOCOLATE: Cazares Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMELIA CAZARES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MADISON CHOCOLATE COMPANY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01527-PP (E.D. Wis., October 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, declaratory relief, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.madisonchocolatecompany.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Madison Chocolate Company LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, with its principal place of business in Madison, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 554-0237 Email: dreyes@ealg.law MARATHON PETROLEUM: Johnson Suit Seeks to Certify Resident Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STELLA JOHNSON, EDWENNIA PETTIGREW and SHAWN R. MOTON, V. MARATHON PETROLEUM CORPORATION and MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY LP, Case No. 2:23-cv-04573-DJP-JVM (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class action for the following class of similarly situated persons: "All persons and entities who/which were residents of, employed in, or maintained a place of business in the mandatory evacuation zone and/or who were prompted to evacuate and who were prompted to evacuate and who/which sustained economic losses or loss of enjoyment/use of their property as a result of the fire and release of hazardous chemicals that occurred on Aug. 25, 2023, at Marathon's Garyville refinery." The Plaintiffs further request that the Court appoint the Plaintiffs as the class representatives, and AMO Trial Lawyers, LLC as class counsel. Marathon is an American petroleum refining, marketing, and transportation company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WxGbOg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David W. Ardoin, Esq. Preston L. Hayes, Esq. Ryan P. Monsour, Esq. AMO TRIAL LAWYERS, LLC 3045 Ridgelake Dr. Metairie, LA 70002 Telephone: (985) 446-3333 Facsimile: (985) 446-3300 MAREX GROUP: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Narayanan v. Marex Group PLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-08393, on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Marex Group plc ("Marex" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MRX) securities between May 16, 2024 and August 5, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. IF YOU SUFFERED A LOSS ON YOUR MAREX INVESTMENTS, Visit https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/Marex-Group-plc/ TO INQUIRE ABOUT POTENTIALLY PURSUING CLAIMS TO RECOVER YOUR LOSS UNDER THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS. What Happened? On August 5, 2025, NINGI Research published a report alleging, among other things, that Marex "has engaged in a multi-year accounting scheme involving a web of opaque off-balance-sheet entities, fictitious intercompany transactions, and misleading disclosures to conceal significant losses, inflate profits, and mask its true risk exposure." The report alleged, among other things, that the Company has "numerous multi-million-dollar discrepancies in intercompany receivables and loans across Marex's sprawling network of 56+ entities." The report identified examples, including "a $17 million receivable created out of thin air, a subsidiary whose reported profit was inflated by 150% in group filings before being liquidated, and an asset valued at $14.9 million that was sold to Robinhood for just $2.5 million weeks later, with no reported loss." The report further alleged the Company concealed nearly $1 billion in off-balance-sheet derivatives exposure through a Luxembourg fund it both controls and trades with, and that it is using the fund to generate non-cash trading profits and inflate operating cash flow by misclassifying structured note issuance as income. On this news, Marex's stock price fell $2.33, or 6.2%, to close at $35.31 per share on August 5, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company sold over-the-counter financial instruments to itself; (2) Marex had inconsistencies in its financial statements between its subsidiaries and related parties, including as to intercompany receivables and loans; (3) as a result of the foregoing, Marex's financial statements could not be relied upon; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Marex securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact us: Charles Linehan, Esq. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Toll-Free: (888) 773-9224 Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com Website: www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] MCNAMARA CHIROPRACTIC: Court Extends Class Cert Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Erin Wilson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. McNamara Chiropractic LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00201-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Jones entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to extend the time for the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification. The Court will set a deadline for the motion for class certification after review of the proposed dates in the Parties' upcoming joint proposed scheduling order. McNamara offers specialized chiropractic care. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xi6buA at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2262: Bank of America Wins Summary Judgment vs Baltimore ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Bank of America Corporation et al. Case No. 1:11-cv-05450 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered an order granting the defendants' joint motion for summary judgment. Additionally, the Defendants' Daubert motion as to Drs. Bernheim and Snow is granted while the Defendants' Daubert motion as to Drs. Cragg and Marx are granted in part and denied in part. Finally, the Plaintiffs' certification motion is denied and the Defendants' decertification motion is granted. Having found that the Plaintiffs failed to proffer evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to conspiracy and suppression, all of the Plaintiffs' claims fail, the Court says. The Baltimore case is 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. More specifically, the plaintiffs "contend that, beginning in 2007, the Banks engaged in a horizontal price fixing conspiracy, with each submission reporting an artificially low cost of borrowing in order to drive LIBOR down." The following class, which we refer to as the OTC class or OTC plaintiffs, was certified under Rule 23(b)(3): "All persons or entities residing in the United States that purchased, directly from a Panel Bank (or a Panel Bank's subsidiaries or affiliates), a LIBOR-Based Instrument that paid interest indexed to a U.S. dollar LIBOR rate set any time during the period August 2007 through August 2009 ("Class Period") regardless of when the LIBOR-Based Instrument was purchased." Bank of America offers a full range of banking, investing, asset management, and other financial and risk management services. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vOq4ce at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2262: Bank of America Wins Summary Judgment vs PFI ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Principal Funds, Inc. et al v. Bank of America Corporation et al (Re: LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation), Case No. 1:13-cv-06013 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered an order granting the defendants' joint motion for summary judgment. Additionally, the Defendants' Daubert motion as to Drs. Bernheim and Snow is granted while the Defendants' Daubert motion as to Drs. Cragg and Marx are granted in part and denied in part. Finally, the Plaintiffs' certification motion is denied and the Defendants' decertification motion is granted. Having found that the Plaintiffs failed to proffer evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to conspiracy and suppression, all of the Plaintiffs' claims fail, the Court says. The Principal case is 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. More specifically, the plaintiffs "contend that, beginning in 2007, the Banks engaged in a horizontal price fixing conspiracy, with each submission reporting an artificially low cost of borrowing in order to drive LIBOR down." The following class, which we refer to as the OTC class or OTC plaintiffs, was certified under Rule 23(b)(3): "All persons or entities residing in the United States that purchased, directly from a Panel Bank (or a Panel Bank's subsidiaries or affiliates), a LIBOR-Based Instrument that paid interest indexed to a U.S. dollar LIBOR rate set any time during the period August 2007 through August 2009 ("Class Period") regardless of when the LIBOR-Based Instrument was purchased." Bank of America offers a full range of banking, investing, asset management, and other financial and risk management services. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BwoaAe at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2262: BoA Wins Summary Judgment vs FDIC ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation et al v. Bank of America Corporation et al. Case No. 1:14-cv-01757 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered an order granting the defendants' joint motion for summary judgment. Additionally, the Defendants' Daubert motion as to Drs. Bernheim and Snow is granted while the Defendants' Daubert motion as to Drs. Cragg and Marx are granted in part and denied in part. Finally, the Plaintiffs' certification motion is denied and the Defendants' decertification motion is granted. Having found that the Plaintiffs failed to proffer evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to conspiracy and suppression, all of the Plaintiffs' claims fail, the Court says. The Federal Deposit case is 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. More specifically, the plaintiffs "contend that, beginning in 2007, the Banks engaged in a horizontal price fixing conspiracy, with each submission reporting an artificially low cost of borrowing in order to drive LIBOR down." The following class, which we refer to as the OTC class or OTC plaintiffs, was certified under Rule 23(b)(3): "All persons or entities residing in the United States that purchased, directly from a Panel Bank (or a Panel Bank's subsidiaries or affiliates), a LIBOR-Based Instrument that paid interest indexed to a U.S. dollar LIBOR rate set any time during the period August 2007 through August 2009 ("Class Period") regardless of when the LIBOR-Based Instrument was purchased." Bank of America offers a full range of banking, investing, asset management, and other financial and risk management services. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dmLUrU at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2262: BoA Wins Summary Judgment vs FHLMC -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. Bank of America Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-03952 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered an order granting the defendants' joint motion for summary judgment. Additionally, the Defendants' Daubert motion as to Drs. Bernheim and Snow is granted while the Defendants' Daubert motion as to Drs. Cragg and Marx are granted in part and denied in part. Finally, the Plaintiffs' certification motion is denied and the Defendants' decertification motion is granted. Having found that the Plaintiffs failed to proffer evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to conspiracy and suppression, all of the Plaintiffs' claims fail, the Court says. The Federal Home case is 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. More specifically, the plaintiffs "contend that, beginning in 2007, the Banks engaged in a horizontal price fixing conspiracy, with each submission reporting an artificially low cost of borrowing in order to drive LIBOR down." The following class, which we refer to as the OTC class or OTC plaintiffs, was certified under Rule 23(b)(3): "All persons or entities residing in the United States that purchased, directly from a Panel Bank (or a Panel Bank's subsidiaries or affiliates), a LIBOR-Based Instrument that paid interest indexed to a U.S. dollar LIBOR rate set any time during the period August 2007 through August 2009 ("Class Period") regardless of when the LIBOR-Based Instrument was purchased." Bank of America offers a full range of banking, investing, asset management, and other financial and risk management services. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u18yaz at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3010: Advertisers Class' Bid to Amend Complaint OK'd -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re: Google Digital Advertising Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:21-md-03010-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon Judge P Kevin Castel entered an order granting the motions of the Advertisers Class, the Publishers Class, Inform, the Daily Mail and Gannett to amend their complaints in the manner identified in their marked-to show changes proposed amendments: -- Amended pleadings shall be filed within seven days of this Order. Answers shall be filed within fourteen days thereafter. The motions to seal submissions in support or opposition to the motions to amend are provisionally granted. -- If the Plaintiffs' partial summary judgment motions on issue preclusion fail, then Google may make a summary judgment motion on broader grounds, including that plaintiffs have not come forward with evidence sufficient to support their claims of relevant geographic or product markets. -- If such a motion were denied, Google would be free to challenge the existence or contours of relevant markets at trial. Certain plaintiffs in these MDL proceedings moved for partial summary judgment under the doctrine of issue preclusion based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law of Judge Leonie Brinkema after the trial of an action brought by the United States and certain states in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The Plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to summary judgment regardless of whether the market was defined as the United States or worldwide. The Publisher Class noted that an amendment conforming the pleadings to the geographic market definition in the E.D. Va. Action would render many of Google's arguments moot. The Court set a schedule for any plaintiff wishing to file a motion to amend to conform its pleading to Judge Brinkema’s findings and conclusions. The Court's Order directed the parties to address whether the conforming amendments would prejudice Google and what impact, if any, they would have on the pending summary judgment motions. The Advertiser Class, the Publisher Class, Inform, the Daily Mail and Gannett have moved to amend principally to allege a worldwide market as an alternative to a United States market. Google has responded in opposition and briefing is now closed. Google is an American multinational technology corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RXrmnY at no extra charge.[CC] META PLATFORMS: Seeks to File Docs Under Seal --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER L. COOK, d/b/a JL Cook, JL Cook Sculptor and SNAKEARTS.COM, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., f/k/a FACEBOOK, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-02485-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting request to allow Plaintiff to file the documents identified in Exhibit A of the Brockway Declaration under seal. The requested relief is necessary and narrowly tailored to protect: (1) trade secrets and other proprietary information reflected in Meta’s confidential source code; and (2) confidential, proprietary, and sensitive business information regarding implementation of Meta’s intellectual property, data retention, and advertising policies and procedures, including practices and systems for identifying potential infringement and other policy-violating content in advertisements. The vast majority of the documents that Meta seeks to seal have been designated, or reference material that has been designated, HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY under the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order. Meta is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=opG2N3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Randi W. Singer, Esq. Elizabeth K. Mclean, Esq. Mary K. Clemmons, Esq. Adriane Peralta, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 839-5300 Facsimile: (212) 839-5599 E-mail: randi.singer@sidley.com elizabeth.mclean@sidley.com katie.clemmons@sidley.com adriane.peralta@sidley.com METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT: Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 6th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON COUNTY is taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part its motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled In re: Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, Case No. 3:23-cv-00924, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and damages related to the enforcement of the Metro Sidewalk Ordinance ("Sidewalk Ordinance"), BL2019-1659, and the misuse of funds paid pursuant to the Sidewalk Ordinance. On Feb. 28, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge Aleta A. Trauger granted in part and denied in part on Aug. 8, 2025. Specifically, the motion is granted with respect to (1) all claims brought by Plaintiff Infinium Builders LLC and (2) as to the Plaintiffs' due process claim. Because Selman's claims accrued outside the limitations period, his claims are dismissed. Several of the claims brought by Lafitte and KE Holdings LLC, doing business as Ascent Construction are timely, as set forth in the accompanying Memorandum. Those claims that are untimely, having accrued outside the limitations period, are dismissed. On Aug. 22, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion for certificate of appealability and memorandum of law in support, which Judge Trauger granted on Sept. 23, 2025. The appellate case is entitled In re: Metropolitan Govt of Nashville & Davidson County, Case No. 25-0506, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on October 3, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents INFINIUM BUILDERS LLC, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON 200 31st Avenue, N. Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Defendant-Petitioner METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN is represented by: Benjamin Andrew Puckett, Esq. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY 1 Public Square, Suite 108 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 862-6381 MONAT GLOBAL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Lopez Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONAT GLOBAL CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08238 (S.D.N.Y., October 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, and New York State General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://monatglobal.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text equivalent, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Monat Global Corp. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal MOTILITY SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Lockwood Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ G. SCOTT LOCKWOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOTILITY SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00330-WHR-CHG (S.D. Ohio, October 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered on August 19, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Motility Software Solutions, Inc. is a software company headquartered in Kettering, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: dlietz@milberg.com NATIONAL TENANT: Class Cert Bid in Rogers Class Suit Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGERS v. NATIONAL TENANT NETWORK, INC. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00585 (D.N.J., Filed Jan. 16, 2025), the Hon. Judge Karen M. Williams entered an order that the deadlines for expert discovery and class certification motion are stayed pending the status conference scheduled for Nov. 13, 2025, at 11:30 a.m. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. National provides resident screening services.[CC] NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Narrows Claims in Washington Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY WASHINGTON, et al., v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01392-CEF (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Charles Fleming entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs' RESPA, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, money had and received, overcharges, and constructive trust claims are dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is denied. The Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs shall file a third amended complaint solely with regard to the remaining claim (breach of contract) and putative class by Oct. 15, 2025. The Defendant shall file its answer to the third amended complaint by Nov. 5, 2025. The Plaintiffs' motion requesting leave to point out certain mortgage language is denied as moot. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pleaded a claim under Regulation X and 12 U.S.C. section 2605(g) of RESPA. Thus, the Plaintiffs' RESPA subclass and individual RESPA claims are dismissed with prejudice. Thus, Plaintiffs' proposed pleadings in the third amended complaint are not sufficient to establish a special relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendant required to allege a fiduciary relationship. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claim is granted. The Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claim is dismissed with prejudice. The court in Hosea found that Hosea could not maintain its claim for constructive trust because a valid contract existed that defined the rights between the parties in the case. Id. Thus, the same analysis the Court engaged in regarding Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim applies here. Consequently, the Plaintiffs' claims for money had and received, overcharges, and constructive trust are dismissed with prejudice. On Aug. 21, 2023, the Court issued a memorandum opinion and order granting Defendant’s partial motion to dismiss and allowing Plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaint by September 18, 2023. On Aug. 24, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their second amended class action complaint. On Sept. 21, 2023, the Defendant filed a partial motion to dismiss. Nationstar offers mortgage services. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PR5V72 at no extra charge.[CC] NBT BANCORP: Class Cert Filing Bid in Richey Due March 2, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Richey, et al., v. NBT Bancorp Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-00362 (N.D.N.Y., Filed March 15, 2024), the Hon. Judge Glenn T. Suddaby entered an order granting the request in Status Report insofar as and to the extent that the deadlines and schedules are extended as follows: (1) The parties are directed to file next detailed status reports by Oct. 27, 2025; (2) All Discovery, including merits, class, and all depositions, shall be completed by April 6, 2026; (3) The Plaintiffs Expert Disclosure Deadline is Jan. 5, 2026; (4) Defendant Expert Disclosure Deadline is Feb. 19, 2026; (5) Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Deadline is March 5, 2026; (6) Dispositive Motions shall be filed by May 11, 2026; and (7) Class Certification Motion shall be filed by March 2, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). NBT is a financial services holding company.[CC] NCAA: Robinson Antitrust Suit Dismissed w/ Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENARD ROBINSON, BRAYLON EDWARDS, MICHAEL MARTIN, and SHAWN CRABLE, individually and on behalf of themselves and former University of Michigan football players similarly situated, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION aka "NCAA", BIG TEN NETWORK aka "BTN", and THE BIG TEN CONFERENCE, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-12355-TGB-KGA (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Terrence G. Berg entered an order: -- denying the Defendants' motion to transfer venue, -- granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss, -- denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, and -- dismissing with prejudice the first amended complaint. Accordingly, the Order closes the case. On April 28, 2025, the Honorable Paul A. Engelmayer dismissed the Chalmers class action with prejudice, finding that the plaintiffs’ claims were untimely and otherwise precluded as a matter of law. As a consequence of Judge Engelmayer’s ruling, there are no longer two duplicative lawsuits pending in two federal courts of equal rank. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Chalmers lawsuit in the Southern District of New York was duplicative of this action, "that action is no longer pending and a transfer would no longer promote judicial economy." The Defendants' alleged conduct that took place after the agreement, but in furtherance of the terms of the agreement, did not constitute a new overt act and the continuing violations doctrine does not apply to Plaintiffs' Sherman Act antitrust claims. The Plaintiffs' Sherman Act claims (Counts I, II, III) therefore are time-barred and must be dismissed The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated federal antitrust laws through NCAA rules restricting name, image, and likeness ("NIL") compensation to student-athletes, and by using their NILs for commercial purposes. While Plaintiffs initially claim to sue "on behalf of all former University of Michigan Football players who played prior to 2016" in the opening of their FAC, the actual proposed definition for the class is much broader, seeking to include all NCAA student-athletes of any kind: "All persons who were NCAA student-athletes prior to June 15, 2016, whose image or likeness has been used in any video posted by or licensed by the NCAA, Big Ten Network, or their agents, distributors, contractors, licensees, subsidiaries, affiliates, partners, or anyone acting in concert with any of the foregoing entities or persons." Robinson played football at the University of Michigan from 2009 to 2012, Edwards from 2001 to 2004, Martin from 2008 to 2011, and Crable from 2003 to 2007. NCAA is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletics. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e77jA5 at no extra charge.[CC] NECKER JEWELRY: Lewis Suit Seeks Damages Over Unwanted Robocalls ---------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NECKER JEWELRY, CO., Defendant, Case No. CACE-25-015124 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., October 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA). According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in an unlawful practice of transmitting a telephone number to the Caller ID services of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers that were not capable of receiving telephone calls. The Defendant's action is part of its marketing strategy to promote its product via text message sales calls. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful business practice, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages. Necker Jewelry, Co. is a jewelry company, doing business in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com NEW DAY: Faces Willis Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------- DA'SHAWNIA WILLIS, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW DAY PERSONAL CARE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-01424 (W.D. La., September 25, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from New Day Personal Care, under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and others similarly situated, have regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. They have not been paid overtime because New Day has a policy of misclassifying employees like Plaintiff as independent contractors. New Day classified Ms. Willis and all its traveling home-care providers as similarly situated and exempt from federal and state overtime laws, and New Day has not paid them overtime, the suit asserts. Plaintiff Willis has worked for New Day for over two years, and she still works for New Day. For that entire time, she has been allegedly classified and paid as a 1099 independent contractor and not an employee. New Day Personal Care Services, Inc. is a company incorporated in Louisiana that provides in-home caregivers across the state.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harry E. Morse, Esq. Martin S. Bohman, Esq. BOHMAN | MORSE, LLC 400 Poydras Street, Suite 2050 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 930-4009 Facsimile: (888) 217-2744 E-mail: harry@bohmanmorse.com martin@bohmanmorse.com - and - Cayce C. Peterson, Esq. Jeffrey P. Green, Esq. JJC LAW LLC 111 Veterans Memorial Blvd. Heritage Plaza, Suite 810 Metairie, LA 70005 Telephone: (504) 513-8820 Facsimile: (504) 513-8824 E-mail: cayce@jjclaw.com jeff@jjclaw.com NEW YORK, NY: Court Dismisses Friedland SAC ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLOW FRIEDLAND, et al., v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-07064-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Denise Cote entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, arguing that the Plaintiffs' section 1983 claims are time barred and plaintiffs cannot avail themselves of tolling pursuant to American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974). The plaintiffs' SAC fails to allege facts that allow it to fit within either prong of the Sow class definition. Thus, as alleged, the plaintiffs were arrested after they failed to comply with the order to "back up and stop filming" the police interaction with the teenagers. Taking the allegations in the SAC as true, they do not provide a basis to find that the plaintiffs could have reasonably relied on the Sow class definition as tolling the statute of limitations for their claims. Also, these allegations do not provide a basis to find that the defendants had fair notice that the plaintiffs' arrests were encompassed within the Sow class action. Finally, the Plaintiffs rely on an argument that their claims "arguably" fall within the Sow FAC's class definition, relying on a formulation articulated in DeFries v. Union Pacific Ralifoad Co., 104 F.4th 1091 (9th Cir. 2024). That argument fails as well. The Plaintiffs brought this section 1983 action against the City of New York and City officials for alleged harms associated with their arrests and detentions at the hands of New York Police Department ("NYPD) officers on June 1, 2020. The Sow FAC defined its proposed class as follows: (a) all persons who were targeted for their First Amendment protected activity including being, inter alia, unlawfully detained and/or arrested without fair warning or ability to disperse, subjected to excessive force, and/or subjected to unreasonably lengthy and unsafe custodial arrest processing during the New York City protest marches in opposition to police misconduct and in support of police reform from May 28, 2020 through no earlier than November, 2020 (the "Protests"); (b) all persons who have been or will be unlawfully detained and/or arrested without fair warning or ability to disperse since May 28, 2020, pursuant to the NYPD's policy, practice, and/or custom of, without legal justification, conducting retaliatory arrests and detentions of individuals protesting in opposition to police misconduct and in support of police reform. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a9n03K at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan C Moore, Esq. Mary Olivia Clark, Esq. BELDOCK LEVINE & HOFFMAN LLP 99 Park Ave 26th Floor New York, NY 10016 - and - Elena Louisa Cohen, Esq. Remy Green, Esq. COHEN GREEN PLLC 1639 Centre Street, Suite 216 Ridgewood, NY 11385 - and - Gideon Orion Oliver, Esq. 277 Broadway, Suite 1501 New York, NY 10007 - and - Wylie M. Stecklow, Esq. WYLIE STECKLOW PLLC Carnegie Hall Tower 152 W. 57th Street Ste 8th Floor New York City, NY 10019 The Defendants are represented by: Yini Zhang, Esq. NYC LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 NEWELL BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Countertop Ovens --------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that the manufacturer of Oster French door countertop ovens faces a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the recalled products suffer from an undisclosed defect that poses a serious burn hazard for consumers. The 26-page lawsuit against Newell Brands, Inc. and Sunbeam Products says that the Oster French door countertop ovens are equipped with doors that lack "sufficient holding force" or secure door hinge mechanisms, meaning that the doors cannot be opened partially and may slam shut on a consumer should their hand slip or fail to keep the doors fully open. The case, citing the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), states that roughly 1.29 million Oster French door countertop ovens were recalled this past September after nearly 100 reports of the doors closing unexpectedly, resulting in burning injuries. The SKU numbers associated with the recalled models are TSSTTVFDXL, TSSTTVFDDG, TSSTTVFDMAF, TSSTTVFDDGDS, TSSTTVFDDAF-033, TSSTTVFDXLPP-033, and TSSTTVFDDAF. Per the CPSC, the Oster oven recall applies to units bought between August 2015 and July 2025 from Sunbeam or from third-party retailers like Costco, Walmart, Amazon.com, and others. According to the complaint, Sunbeam was aware of the apparent design flaw but failed to disclose to consumers that the countertop ovens posed a serious burn hazard. Moreover, the suit continues, the company's safety representations about the products, which retailed between $140 and $250, included no mention of "critical safety details" concerning the propensity of the double doors to snap shut and burn users. "When it sold the Affected Products, Sunbeam's consumer-facing marketing was materially misleading and induced consumers to purchase and use the product under a false sense of safety," the class action lawsuit charges. "By touting the door mechanism as a benefit while concealing the known risk of sudden closure, later confirmed in the recall, Sunbeam engaged in deceptive and false advertising practices." Along with the recall, Sunbeam has urged consumers to cease using the Oster ovens and contact the company for a free repair kit. Per the CPSC, this kit includes a clip-on device for the oven, which the manufacturer says will provide additional support to the hinges and holding force of the doors when opened. Consumers can head to this page to receive a free Oster oven repair kit from Sunbeam, with shipping included, for the recalled models. The repair kit requires no additional tools and comes with instructions for assembly, and the company claims that shipping will begin sometime in November 2025. According to the case, the plaintiff, a New York City resident, "has been burned" by the Oster French door countertop oven model she owns and, per the filing, "does not think the repair kit provided by Sunbeam during the recall is sufficient to safeguard her." This is not the first time Sunbeam has been under fire for allegedly defective products, as the company in 2023 recalled electric blankets due to an overheating and fire risk. The Oster French door countertop oven lawsuit looks to cover all consumers in the United States who bought one or more of the products at issue in the U.S. for personal and/or household use during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] NORTHUP CENTER: Lewis Sues Over Disabled's Equal Access to Parking ------------------------------------------------------------------ STEVE LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHUP CENTER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01937 (W.D. Wash., October 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Washington Law Against Discrimination. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its facilities to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other persons with disabilities. The Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of its properties and business. The Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered architectural barriers in common areas such parking spaces and access to aisles. The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when such removal is readily achievable for the place of public accommodation. Northup Center, LLC is a commercial property owner and operator doing business in Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dustine Bowker, Esq. 4115 Roosevelt Way NE, Suite B Seattle, WA 98105 Telephone: (206) 428-3172 Email: dustine@wacda.com - and - Conrad Reynoldson, Esq. 4115 Roosevelt Way NE, Suite B Seattle, WA 98105 Telephone: (206) 876-8515 Email: conrad@wacda.com OCEAN STATE: Belanger Seeks Conditional Collective Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN BELANGER et al., v. OCEAN STATE JOBBERS INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00103-NT (D. Me.), the Hon. Judge Karen Frink Wolf entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion and conditionally certifying the following Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective: "All persons now or formerly employed by Ocean State Jobbers Inc. as Area Team Leaders on a salary paid basis at any time from March 28, 2021, until the entry of a final order in this action." Ocean State is ordered, by Oct. 10, 2025, to provide the Plaintiffs an Excel spreadsheet listing the names of current or former employees who fall within the collective, along with their mailing addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, positions worked during the relevant time period, and dates of employment in each position. Finally, the parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding the content of and distribution procedure for the notice of the collective action and file a joint proposed order and notice—or competing proposed orders and notices, if they are unable to agree—by Oct. 10, 2025. Judge Wolf said, "Because I conclude that the Plaintiffs have met the lenient standard for conditional certification and notification, I grant their motion." The Plaintiffs claim that their former employer Ocean State Jobbers Inc. violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by improperly classifying them and other Area Team Leads as exempt from overtime compensation, Judge Wolf adds. Ocean State is a Rhode Island corporation that operates over 150 retail stores throughout the Northeast. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8lGFew at no extra charge.[CC] OCMBC INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Bryant Due Feb. 12, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY HUDSON-BRYANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OCMBC, INC. dba LOANSTREAM, PREMIER FINANCIAL MARKETING LLC D/B/A RESMO LENDING, AND SEAN ROBERTS, Case No. 8:24-cv-00067-FWS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred Slaughter entered an order re joint motion and stipulation to continue case deadlines: Event Date Final pretrial conference & hearing Aug. 13, 2026 on motions in limine: Last date to file motion for class Feb. 12, 2026 Certification: Last date to file opposition to motion Mar. 11, 2026 for class certification: Last date to file reply in support of Mar. 25, 2026 motion for class certification: In-person hearing on motion for class Apr. 16, 2026 certification: Expert discovery cut-off: Mar. 12, 2026 Ocmbc provides mortgage services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ywggoq at no extra charge.[CC] OHIO: Director Sued Over Illegal Taking of Private Property ----------------------------------------------------------- MARY BLEICK; TODD BUTLER; ALLEN SKIERSKI; and GARY PETRIME, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SHERYL MAXFIELD, in her official capacity as Director of Commerce; AKIL HARDY, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Division of Unclaimed Funds; ROBERT SPRAGUE, in his official capacity as Treasurer of the State of Ohio; JOY BLEDSOE, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the Ohio Facilities Construction Commission, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01140-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Oct. 2, 2025) seeks to prevent the unconstitutional and unlawful taking of private property held by the State of Ohio as a custodian for individual property owners. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendants intend to confiscate and divert Ohioans' "unclaimed funds" from their intended purpose—to be held and preserved for the benefit of the rightful owners—to finance the construction of a private sports stadium for the Cleveland Browns. Ohio is a state in the Midwestern region of the United States. It borders Lake Erie to the north, Pennsylvania to the east, West Virginia to the southeast, Kentucky to the southwest, Indiana to the west, and Michigan to the northwest. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey A. Crossman, Esq. Marc E. Dann, Esq. Brian D. Flick, Esq. DANNLAW 15000 Madison Avenue Lakewood, OH 44107 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 Email: notices@dannlaw.com ONLY WHAT YOU NEED: Class Cert Hearing Set for Feb. 26, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Emmett Enriques, v. Only What You Need, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-08969-GW-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George Wu entered an order setting a hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification for Feb. 26, 2026. The Court's Tentative Ruling on the Defendant's Motion was issued on Sept. 23, 2025. Oral argument is held. Based on the Tentative Ruling, and for reasons stated on the record, the Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part. The Defendant will have statutory time to respond to the Plaintiff's first amended complaint. Court and counsel discuss scheduling. The Defendant provides nutritional supplement products. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5iF05p at no extra charge.[CC] OPTIMAL BLUE: Artificially Inflates Mortgage Rates, Mendez Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL D. MENDEZ, SETH OGILVIE, ORI WASSERBURG and NANCY DONACKITHOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OPTIMAL BLUE, LLC; BLACK KNIGHT, INC.; CONSTELLATION SOFTWARE, INC.; ROCKET MORTGAGE, LLC; UNITED WHOLESALE MORTGAGE, LLC; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; LOANDEPOT.COM; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; FAIRWAY INDEPENDENT MORTGAGE CORPORATION; U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION; GUARANTEED RATE, INC.; NEWREZ, LLC; CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE, LLC; PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC; GUILD MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC; CITIBANK, N.A.; FLAGSTAR BANK, N.A.; NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC; NEW AMERICAN FUNDING, LLC; CMG MORTGAGE, INC.; AMERISAVE MORTGAGE CORPORATION; BETTER MORTGAGE CORPORATION; FIRSTBANK; CHURCHILL MORTGAGE CORPORATION; FIRST COMMUNITY MORTGAGE, INC; MOVEMENT MORTGAGE, LLC; and BEELINE LOANS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01140 (M.D. Tenn., October 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for price fixing and information exchange in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The case arises from a nationwide conspiracy among the Defendants to artificially inflate residential mortgage rates and fees across America. According to the complaint, the Defendants have exploited their control of the residential mortgage industry to orchestrate a price-fixing scheme from at least 2019 to the present. The Defendants abandoned competition and instead coordinate their residential mortgage pricing through Optimal Blue's software tools to extract maximum profits from homebuyers. As a result of the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, the Plaintiffs and the Class suffered damages, says the suit. Optimal Blue, LLC is a software provider, headquartered in Plano, Texas. Black Knight, Inc. is a software provider, headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida. Constellation Software, Inc. is a software provider, headquartered in Toronto, Ontario. Rocket Mortgage, LLC is a mortgage lender, headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC is a mortgage lender, headquartered in Pontiac, Michigan. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a national banking association with its principal place of business in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a national banking association with its principal place of business in Columbus, Ohio. LoanDepot.com, LLC is a mortgage lender, headquartered in Irvine, California. Bank of America, N.A. is a national banking association with its principal place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina. Fairway Independent Mortgage Corporation is a mortgage lender, headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin. U.S. Bank National Association is a nationwide financial services provider, headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. Freedom Mortgage Corporation is a mortgage lender, headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Guaranteed Rate, Inc. is a mortgage lender, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. NewRez, LLC is a mortgage lender, headquartered in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania. CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC is a mortgage lender, headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC is a mortgage lender, headquartered in Westlake Village, California. Guild Mortgage Company, LLC is a mortgage lender, headquartered in San Diego, California. Citibank, N.A. is a national banking association with its principal place of business in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Flagstar Bank, N.A. is a national banking association with its principal place of business in Hicksville, New York. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC is a mortgage lender, headquartered in Coppell, Texas. New American Funding, LLC is a mortgage lender, headquartered in Tustin, California. CMG Mortgage, Inc. is a mortgage lender, headquartered in San Ramon, California. AmeriSave Mortgage Corporation is a mortgage lender, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Better Mortgage Corporation is a mortgage lender, headquartered in New York, New York. FirstBank is a mortgage lender, headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee. Churchill Mortgage Corporation is a mortgage lender, headquartered in Brentwood, Tennessee. First Community Mortgage, Inc. is a mortgage lender, headquartered in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Movement Mortgage, LLC is a mortgage lender, headquartered in Indian Land, South Carolina. Beeline Loans, Inc. is a mortgage lender, headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tricia R. Herzfeld, Esq. Anthony A. Orlandi, Esq. HERZFELD SUETHOLZ GASTEL LENISKI AND WALL, PLLC 1920 Adelicia St., Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37212 Telephone: (615) 800-6225 Email: tricia@hsglawgroup.com tony@hsglawgroup.com - and - Robin A. van der Meulen, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6443 Email: rvandermeulen@scott-scott.com - and - Carmen A. Medici, Esq. Jimmy S. McBirney, Esq. Isabella De Lisi, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 West Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 798-5325 Facsimile: (619) 233-0508 Email: cmedici@scott-scott.com jmcbirney@scott-scott.com idelisi@scott-scott.com - and - Patrick McGahan, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06145 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 Email: pmcgahan@scott-scott.com - and - Brian D. Clark, Esq. Arielle S. Wagner, Esq. Olivia T. Levinson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 Email: bdclark@locklaw.com aswagner@locklaw.com otlevinson@locklaw.com - and - Kyle Pozan, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 1165 North Clark Street, Suite 700 Chicago, IL 60610 Telephone: (312) 205-8968 Email: kjpozan@locklaw.com OSHKOSH CORP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Conspiracy ---------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D., writing for VitalLaw, reports that the complaint alleges that fire truck prices have doubled over the last ten years, which inflation alone does not explain. The City of Augusta, Maine, brought a class action lawsuit individually and on behalf of a proposed class of direct purchasers of fire trucks against Oshkosh Corporation, Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., REV Group, Inc., Rosenbauer America LLC (manufacturing defendants, collectively) and the Fire Apparatus Manufacturers' Association (FAMA), who the plaintiffs allege engaged in a conspiracy to limit the supply and to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of fire trucks sold in the U.S. at supra-competitive levels. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff and class members paid artificially inflated prices for fire trucks. As a result, they have suffered antitrust injury to their businesses or property in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act and Section 4 of the Clayton Act (City of Augusta v. Oshkosh Corp., No. 1:25-cv-01543-BBC (E.D. Wis. Oct. 7, 2025)). The complaint alleges that fire truck prices have doubled in the last ten years and that inflation alone does not explain the price increases. As a result of high prices and long order backlogs, communities are prevented from replacing their old rigs with fire trucks that should have been retired after 15 or 20 years being used for 30 years. The older trucks break down more frequently and are more difficult to repair than new trucks, leaving gaps in communities' fire protection systems and putting the public in danger. Communities that have been able to purchase new fire trucks have had to redirect funds from other priorities to cover the price increases. Alleged scheme. The manufactures supply fire trucks sold throughout the United States, controlling between 70 and 80 percent of the U.S. fire truck market, the complaint alleges. In or about January 2016, the manufacturing defendants entered into an agreement, combination, or conspiracy to limit the supply and to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of fire trucks sold in the U.S. at supra-competitive levels. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the three manufacturing defendants conspired to use their collective market power to suppress the fire truck supply and raise prices, perpetrating their conspiracy in party through FAMA, which collects sensitive, non-public economic data from fire truck manufacturers and sends it to an outside consulting company. The consulting company compiles the data into reports that FAMA then distributes to its members, who use the sensitive economic data to coordinate price increases and suppress production. The manufacturing defendants also use FAMA to monitor their co-conspirators to ensure continued adherence to the conspiracy, the complaint alleges. As a result of the defendants' unlawful conduct, the complaint alleges, the plaintiff and class members paid artificially inflated prices for fire trucks, with the prices paid exceeding the amount they would have paid if the price for fire trucks had been determined by a competitive market. Relief requested. The complaint asks the court: (1) to find that the unlawful conduct, conspiracy, or combination alleged to be in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as well as state antitrust and common law; (2) to order damages to the maximum extent allowed under the applicable laws and to enter a joint and several judgment in favor of the plaintiff and class members against the defendants in an amount to be trebled to the extent permitted; and (3) to order injunctive relief permanently enjoining and restraining the defendants from continuing, maintaining, or renewing the conduct, conspiracy, or combination alleged or from entering into any other conspiracy or combination having a similar purpose or effect, and from adopting or following any practice, plan, program, or device having a similar purpose or effect. The Case is No. 1:25-cv-01543-BBC. Judge: Conway, B. Attorneys: Christopher E. Avallone (Von Briesen & Roper SC) for City of Augusta. Companies: Oshkosh Corp. [GN] OSI INDUSTRIES: McCurry Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Employees ---------------------------------------------------------------- LARRY MCCURRY, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OSI INDUSTRIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12171 (N.D. Ill., October 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in its slicing department from approximately January, 2025 through approximately May, 2025. OSI Industries, LLC is a provider of custom food product development and global food supply chain management and solutions in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave., Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 Email: james@simonsayspay.com OTTAWA COUNTY, MI: Grainger Appeals Judgment Order to 6th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- FREDERICK GRAINGER, JR. is taking an appeal from a court judgment in the lawsuit entitled Frederick Grainger, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ottawa County, MI, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00501, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged civil rights violations. On Sept. 30, 2025, Judge Paul L. Maloney entered judgment in favor of the Defendants. The appellate case is entitled Frederick Grainger, Jr. v. Ottawa County, MI, et al., Case No. 25-1888, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on October 3, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant FREDERICK GRAINGER, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Philip Lee Ellison, Esq. P.O. Box 107 Hemlock, MI 48626 Telephone: (989) 642-0055 Defendants-Appellees OTTAWA COUNTY, MI, et al. are represented by: Ashley Grace Chrysler, Esq. Matthew T. Nelson, Esq. WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD 150 Ottawa Avenue, N.W., Suite 1500 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Telephone: (616) 752-2000 - and - Douglas J. Curlew, Esq. CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO 17436 College Parkway, Third Floor Livonia, MI 48152 Telephone: (734) 261-2400 - and - Kyle Michael Asher, Esq. Theodore W. Seitz, Esq. DYKEMA 201 Townsend Street, Suite 900 Lansing, MI 48933 Telephone: (517) 374-9100 OWLET INC: Class Settlement in Butala Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL J. BUTALA, et al., v. OWLET, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-09016-FLA-SSC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Aenlle-Rocha entered an order granting motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and preliminarily approving class action settlement for section 10(b) claims: 1. Proposed Class Certification for Settlement Purposes -- The parties have proposed certification of the following Settlement Class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) and solely for purposes of effectuating the proposed Settlement: "All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Owlet (i.e., common stock or warrants) between March 31, 2021, and Oct. 4, 2021, both dates inclusive, and who were damaged thereby." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: the Defendants; the officers and directors of Owlet; members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, agents, affiliates, successors or assigns; the Defendants' liability insurance carriers and any affiliates or subsidiaries thereof; and any entity in which the Defendants or their immediate families have or had a controlling interest. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are any persons and entities that submit a request for exclusion from the Settlement Class that is accepted by the court. 2. The court shall hold a hearing ("Settlement Hearing") on Feb. 6, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. Owlet operates as a health technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RmjWIN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer L. Joost, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 The Defendant is represented by: Colleen C. Smith, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 12670 High Bluff Drive San Diego, CA 92130 PALM TYSONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Membreno Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- MABEL ALVARADO MEMBRENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PALM TYSONS TOO, INC. d/b/a The Plam Restaurant, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01648 (E.D. Va., Oct. 1, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Membreno was employed by the Defendant as a busser. Palm Tysons Too, Inc. operates a restaurant located at Tysons, VA, known as The Palm Restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Sutter, Esq. SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC 7540 Littler River Turnpike Suite A, First Floor Annandale, VA 22003 Telephone: (703) 256-1800 Email: matt@sutterandterpak.com PAYACTIV INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baker Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAYACTIV, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-08493 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 6, 2025) is an action arising from the Defendant's failure to secure the personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class, following a cyberattack (the "Data Breach"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' PII from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Defendant could have prevented or mitigated the consequences of the Data Breach by limiting access to sensitive information to only necessary employees, requiring multi-factor authentication to verify access credentials, encrypting data at rest and in transit, monitoring its systems for signs of unusual activity or the transfer of large volumes of data, and regularly rotating passwords. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members prompt and accurate notice of the Data Breach, the suit alleges. PayActiv, Inc. operates financial wellness platform. The Company offers solutions for budgeting, financial counseling, debt payoff, and earned wage access. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: cardoso@kolwayers.com PAYACTIV INC: McPhearson Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info -------------------------------------------------------------- BRINEA MCPHEARSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAYACTIV, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-08506 (N.D. Cal., October 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between April 3, 2025 and August 20, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Payactiv, Inc. is a financial services company, headquartered in Milpitas, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 1925 Century Park E, #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com PENNYMAC LOAN: McLane Class Suit Removed to D. Mass. ---------------------------------------------------- The case RYAN MCLANE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2579CV00210, was removed from the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Hampden County, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on October 6, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-30174 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of Massachusetts General Laws. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC is a mortgage lender, headquartered in Westlake Village, California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Krystle G. Tadesse, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 2800 Financial Plaza Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 274-9200 Email: krystle.tadesse@troutman.com - and - Daron L. Janis, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 111 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02199 Telephone: (617) 239-0124 Email: daron.janis@troutman.com PERIMETER SOLUTIONS: Taylor Sues Over Charter Violations -------------------------------------------------------- BRUCE TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of himself and all similarly situated stockholders of Perimeter Solutions, Inc., Plaintiff v. PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, INC.; HAITHAM KHOURI; and VIVEK RAJ, Defendants, Case No. 2025-1118 (Del. Ch., Oct. 1, 2025) alleges violation of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' Charter is clear that all directors of Perimeter "shall each serve for a term of one year." Nonetheless, the Company's 2025 annual proxy statement asserted that the Director Defendants were in the middle of terms that will not expire until 2027. The Director Defendants did not stand for reelection in 2025 and intend to continue serving as directors without being elected until 2027. Perimeter Solutions Inc manufactures and distributes lubricant additives and firefighting chemicals. The Company produces fire retardants, fuel gelling agent, foam concentrates, and phosphorus pentasulfide for the fire safety and specialty products industries. Perimeter Solutions operates worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ned Weinberger, Esq. Ryan C. Stieve, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 573-2540 Email: nweinberger@labaton.com rstieve@labaton.com - and - John Vielandi, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 - and - Joel Fleming, Esq. Amanda Crawford, Esq. EQUITY LITIGATION GROUP LLP 1 Washington Mall #1307 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 468-8602 - and - Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq. David F.E. Tejtel, Esq. FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC 493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D Bedford Hills, NY 10507 Telephone: (888) 529-1108 - and - J. Abbott R. Cooper, Esq. ABBOTT COOPER PLLC 1266 East Main Street, Suite 700R Stamford, CT 06902 Telephone: (475) 477-5031 - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 PREMIER INC: M&A Probes Sale Patient Square Capital Affiliate ------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC, headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating -- Premier, Inc. (NASDAQ: PINC) related to its sale to an affiliate of Patient Square Capital. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Premier shareholders will receive $28.25 in cash per share. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/premier-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- ODP Corporation (NASDAQ: ODP) related to its sale to an affiliate of Atlas Holdings. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, ODP shareholders will receive $28.00 in cash per share. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/odp-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- PROS Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: PRO) related to its sale to Thoma Bravo. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, PROS shareholders will receive $23.25 in cash per share. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/pros-holdings-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Merus N.V. (NASDAQ: MRUS) related to its sale to Genmad A/S. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Merus stockholders will receive $97.00 in cash per share. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/merus-n-v/. 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 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] PRIME NOW: Filing for Class Cert in Quintero Due Feb. 6, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIDGET SIBYL QUINTERO, v. PRIME NOW LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-03382-MWF-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael Fitzgerald entered an order granting the parties' Joint Stipulation to Continue Motion for Class Certification Filing and Related Deadlines, filed September 24, 2025, as follows: File motion for class certification: Feb. 6, 2026 File opposition to motion for class March 2, 2026 certification: File reply in support of motion for March 23, 2026 class certification: Hearing on motion for class certification: April 13, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Non-expert discovery cut-off: July 31 2026 Final pretrial conference and hearing on Nov. 9, 2026, motions in limine: at 11:00 a.m. Jury Trial (Est. 3 to 4 days): Dec. 1, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. Prime is a subsidiary of Amazon that oversees its same-day grocery shopping and delivery services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hOd0R0 at no extra charge.[CC] PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN: Class Settlement in Knight Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIK KNIGHT and JUNG KIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE, and PROGRESSIVE CLASSIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Ohio corporations, Case No. 3:22-cv-00203-JM (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge James Moody Jr. entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement and granting motion for attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and service awards AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Court confirms the appointments of Erik Knight and Jung Kim as Settlement Class Representatives for the Settlement Classes. 2. The Court confirms the appointments of Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Jacobson Phillips PLLC, Normand PLLC, Edelsberg Law, P.A., and Shamis & Gentile as Class Counsel. 3. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees in the amount of $3,963,531.00 is granted because the amount is fair and reasonable and consistent with fee awards in the Eighth Circuit and beyond. 4. The Court approves costs of $112,000.00 incurred by Class Counsel in the prosecution and settlement of this Action. The costs sought are fair and reasonable under Rule 23 and applicable caselaw, and are less than Class Counsel's actual out-of-pocket expenses of $118,420.68. 5. The Court finds the service awards requested are reasonable and warranted, and approves service awards to each Plaintiff— in the amounts of $10,000.00 to Plaintiff Knight and $5,000 to Plaintiff Kim. Progressive operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sDVvJ3 at no extra charge.[CC] PROSPER FUNDING: Fails to Protect Private Info, Valencia Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Alexandres G. Valencia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Prosper Funding, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-08169-TSH (N.D. Cal., September 25, 2025) is a class action arising out of the recent targeted cyberattack and data breach on Defendant's network that resulted in the disclosure of thousands of Class Members' private information. The Plaintiff and Class Members had their most sensitive personal information accessed, exfiltrated, and stolen due to the data breach, causing them to suffer ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack. By this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the Data Breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims on behalf of the Class (defined infra) for (1) negligence/negligence per se, (2) unjust enrichment, and (3) breach of implied contract. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers of Defendant who received services from Defendant prior to the data breach. Prosper Funding, LLC is a financial services company offering a variety of lending products to consumers and businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 E-mail: bbleichner@chesnutcambronne.com PURDUE PHARMA: Contributes to Opioid Crisis, Marshall County Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARSHALL COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION and WETZEL COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THERESA E. SACKLER; KATHE A. SACKLER; MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER; ILENE SACKLER LEFCOURT; RICHARD S. SACKLER and DAVID A. SACKLER, as Executors of the Estate of Raymond R. Sackler; RICHARD S. SACKLER and DAVID A. SACKLER, as Executors of the Estate of Beverly Sackler; RICHARD S. SACKLER; DAVID A. SACKLER; GARRETT LYNAM, as Executor of the Estate of Jonathan D. Sackler, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-00228-JPB (N.D. W. Va., October 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. This civil class action is brought against the estates of and other living individual members of the Sackler family for their leading roles in (a) knowingly, intentionally, willfully recklessly, and/or negligently foisting, failing to prevent, and contributing to the opioid crisis that continues to destroy families and costs lives, and (b) engaging in an unlawful enterprise to fraudulently transfer billions of dollars generated by Purdue Pharma LP from the opioid crisis to themselves. Through the Sacklers' direction, Purdue's sales of OxyContin, concerted efforts to push aggressive and deceptive marketing of opioid products, failure to take steps required by law to address diversion of its products, and other breaches of duty, set the opioid epidemic ablaze and stoked it for decades, suit says. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs and the School District Class and Subclass Member sustained damages. The Individual Defendants are the owners of the now-dissolved pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq. John W. Barrett, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 Email: bbailey@baileyglasser.com jbarrett@baileyglasser.com - and - Cyrus Mehri, Esq. MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC 2000 K Street, N.W., Suite 325 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 822-5100 Email: cmehri@findjustice.com - and - Michael Murphy, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson St. NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Email: mmurphy@baileyglasser.com - and - Wayne Hogan, Esq. TERREL HOGAN YEGELWEL, P.A. 233 East Bay Street, 8th Floor Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 722-2228 Email: hogan@terrellhogan.com - and - Neil Henrichsen, Esq. Austin Griffin, Esq. HENRICHSEN LAW GROUP, PLLC 655 15th Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 423-3649 Email: nhenrichsen@hslawyers.com agriffin@hslawyers.com PURPOSE FINANCIAL: Class Cert Filing in Rayle Due July 27, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA BUTLER RAYLE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. PURPOSE FINANCIAL INC. D/B/A ADVANCE AMERICA, APEX RECOVERY SERVICES LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-06050-MGL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Mary Geiger Lewis entered a Second Amended Scheduling Order as follows: 1. Motions to join other parties and amend the pleadings (Fed.R.Civ.P.16(b)(3)(A)) shall be filed no later than Dec. 29, 2025. 2. The Plaintiff(s) shall file and serve a document identifying by full name, address, and telephone number each person whom the Plaintiff(s) expects to call as an expert at trial and certifying that a written report prepared and signed by the expert including all information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) has been disclosed to other parties by July 6, 2026. 3. The Defendant(s) shall file and serve a document identifying by full name, address, and telephone number each person whom Defendant(s) expects to call as an expert at trial and certifying that a written report prepared and signed by the expert including all information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) has been disclosed to other parties by Aug. 28, 2026. 4. Discovery shall be completed no later than Aug. 28, 2026. 5. The Plaintiff shall file her motion for class certification no later than July 27, 2026. 6. All other motions, except those to complete discovery, those nonwaivable motions made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12, and those relating to the admissibility of evidence at trial, shall be filed on or before Sept. 25, 2026. Purpose operates as an investment management company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6sRC4d at no extra charge.[CC] QUEENS BOROUGH: Jackson Seeks OK of Settlement Deal --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TANYA JACKSON, an individual; and CENTER FOR INDEPENDENCE OF THE DISABLED, NEW YORK, a nonprofit organization; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. QUEENS BOROUGH PUBLIC LIBRARY, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF QUEENS BOROUGH PUBLIC LIBRARY, AND THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:19-cv-06656-ST (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order: -- finally certifying the settlement class, -- appointing the Named Plaintiffs as class representatives, -- appointing the Plaintiffs' Counsel as class counsel, -- approving the proposed settlement agreement, and -- approving the proposed award of attorneys' fees and costs. Queens is one of three public library systems serving New York City. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=980Y7z at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Madeleine J. Reichman, Esq. Shawna L. Parks, Esq. Amelia Evard, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 655 Third Avenue, Suite 2619 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 644-8644 Facsimile: (212) 644-8636 E-mail: mreichman@dralegal.org sparks@dralegal.org aevard@dralegal.org RE/MAX CANADA: $7.8-Million Class Settlement Gets Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courtney Zwicker, writing for Real Estate Magazine, reports that Re/Max Canada confirms the court has approved its $7.8-million settlement of two class-action lawsuits that challenge real estate commission structures. The company confirmed in a statement to Real Estate Magazine that a decision was issued this week, enabling Re/Max to move forward with addressing allegations in the Sunderland and McFall cases, which claim that existing rules mandating homesellers to pay buyer brokerage commissions inflate costs and limit competition. Re/Max first revealed the settlement agreement in February. "Re/Max Canada is pleased the court has approved our settlement in the Sunderland and McFall cases, and we thank the court for its thoughtful review and decision," reads a statement provided to REM. "Since the beginning of this process, Re/Max has been focused on supporting our network and reinforcing the strength of the brand. Our community of trusted, productive professionals will continue to deliver exceptional value to buyers and sellers across the country." Re/Max has maintained that the settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing. This development follows similar settlements in the United States, where Re/Max and other major real estate companies, as well as the National Association of Realtors (NAR), agreed to financial settlements to resolve claims of anticompetitive commission practices. Settlement details According to a notice published in August by Toronto law firm Kalloghlian Myers LLP, the settlement requires three things of Re/Max: 1. Pay $7.8 million 2. Cooperate in the ongoing prosecution of the class actions against the non-settling defendants 3. Implement several changes, including "ending the practice of requiring its franchisees and their affiliated brokers, salespersons and agents to join or to be members of a real estate board or association defendant or to follow the rules alleged to give rise to damages claimed in this proceeding." [GN] RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Powers Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE POWERS, v. RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, LLC ("RPM"), Case No. 4:21-cv-12125-MRG (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Margaret R. Guzman entered an order regarding the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: The Court grants in part and denies in part RPM's motion for summary judgment. RPM's motion is denied as to the merits of the Plaintiff's Chapter 93A claim, but granted as to its request to limit Plaintiff's damages to nominal damages of $25. The Court grants in part Powers' motion to certify class. The Court will certify the following class, amending Powers' class definition in accordance with the foregoing order: "All persons residing in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts who, (1) between Sept. 18, 2014 and Sept. 18, 2018, the Defendant initiated in-excess of two telephone communications within a seven-day period regarding a debt which was more than thirty-days past due to their residence, cellular telephone, or other provided telephone number; and who (2) do not seek to prove actual damages." Having determined that Powers has satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 and ascertainability, the Court grants in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification– with amendments to the class definition. The Plaintiff alleges that RPM engaged in a systematic practice of violating Massachusetts debt collection regulations by initiating telephone communications regarding a debt in excess of two times within a seven-day period to the Plaintiffs' telephones. RPM is a third-party debt collector located in the state of Washington. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cVKQCV at no extra charge.[CC] REGENCE BLUESHIELD: E.S. Seeks Initial OK of $3MM Settlement Fund ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as E.S., by and through her parents, R.S. and J.S., and JODI STERNOFF, both on their own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, v. REGENCE BLUESHIELD; and CAMBIA HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., f/k/a THE REGENCE GROUP, Case No. 2:17-cv-01609-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order preliminarily approving the Agreement. In particular, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), the Plaintiffs move the Court to: (a) preliminarily approve the Agreement; (b) authorize sending notice and claims documents to class members; and (c) establish a final settlement approval hearing and process. The Settlement Fund of $3,000,000 is fair, adequate, and reasonable. The case was filed on Oct. 30, 2017, on behalf of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants' exclusion of coverage for hearing loss violated Section 1557 of the ACA. The Plaintiffs Sternoff and E.S. are diagnosed with hearing impairments for which they require treatment with hearing aids and associated services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=abtYpo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eleanor Hamburger, Esq. Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq. Daniel S. Gross, Esq. SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC 3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (206) 223-0303 Facsimile: (206) 223-0246 E-mail: ehamburger@sylaw.com rspoonemore@sylaw.com dgross@sylaw.com REPUBLIC SERVICES: CIS Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CIS COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00359-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge John A. Ross entered an order granting in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The class shall consist of: "All Missouri commercial and industrial customers who had a Service Agreement with the Defendants or their subsidiaries and affiliates at any time from Jan. 1, 2014, to Dec. 31, 2016, and who paid any amounts in excess of the original price in the Service Agreement, excluding customers whose Rate Adjustment provision was subject to a rate restriction during the class period.” The Court further entered an order that the Plaintiff's counsel is appointed counsel for the class. In May 2005, the Plaintiff signed a Customer Service Agreement (CSA) for waste removal services with Allied's predecessor in interest, Midwest Waste (collectively Allied). The agreement established a basic service rate of $44 per month, with a rate adjustment clause permitting Allied to increase the rate unilaterally for certain specific reasons or for any other reason with Plaintiff's consent. In August 2018, the Plaintiff complained, and Allied offered to reduce the monthly rate to $55. Suspecting that Allied had been raising rates without contractual justification or consent since the beginning, the Plaintiff terminated the agreement and commenced this putative class action asserting claims of breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent inducement, and unjust enrichment. Republic provides waste removal services for commercial, industrial, and residential customers. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rdrfoU at no extra charge.[CC] RICKY DIXON: Prisoner Class in Wilson Suit Wins Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DWAYNE WILSON, et al., v. RICKY DIXON, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-24253-KMW (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Williams entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' claims against the Defendants are certified as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. The following class is certified: "all current or future prisoners who are or will be incarcerated at Dade Correctional Institution." The Court further certifies a Heat Subclass consisting of: "members of the general class who either: 1) have a physiological condition that places them at increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death (including obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, psychiatric conditions, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cystic fibrosis, asthma, sweat gland dysfunction, and thyroid dysfunction); or 2) are prescribed an anticonvulsant, anticholinergic, antipsychotic, antihistamine, antidepressant, beta blocker, or diuretic; or 3) are over age 65. Finally, the Court certifies a Disability Subclass consisting of: "members of the general class who have a disability that substantially limits one or more of their major life activities and who are at increased risk of heat-related illness, injury, or death due to their disability or any medical treatment necessary to treat their disability." 3. Pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Dante P. Trevisani, Ray Taseff, and Andrew Udelsman, and the Florida Justice Institute are appointed as class counsel. 4. The Plaintiffs Dwayne Wilson, Tyrone Harris, and Gary Wheeler are approved as class representatives. Accordingly, because the Defendants' climate control policies affect the entirety of the inmate population at Dade CI and because injunctive relief would provide relief to the whole class, the Court finds that certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate. The Plaintiffs allege that a combination of factors, including the buildings' concrete structures and inadequate ventilation systems, results in a higher heat index at Dade CI than at the Homestead Air Force Base. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the dormitory ventilation systems, which were installed decades ago, have not been properly maintained and are missing critical components like fans and motors. Mr. Wilson is 66 years old and suffers from hypertension and an enlarged prostate. Due to a prior burn injury, Mr. Wilson is unable to sweat normally. Due to his conditions and the medications he takes for them, Mr. Wilson urinates frequently and is at a higher risk of dehydration. Heat makes Mr. Wilson feel drowsy and dizzy and, in August 2024, he fainted in his dormitory. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZGVQGn at no extra charge.[CC] RIZZI GERIATRIC: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, Stonebraker Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARY BETH STONEBRAKER and JADA ANASTASIA, individuals, and on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. RIZZI GERIATRIC ASSOCIATES, INC., a Florida corporation, RIZZI PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATES, INC., a Florida corporation, and RIZZI GROUP, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00851 (M.D. Fla., September 25, 2025) is an action for unpaid overtime compensation, unlawful misclassification, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees were denied overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay as required by the FLSA. As a direct result of Defendants' willful misclassification of hourly paid employees, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals were rendered ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits, says the suit. Plaintiff Stonebraker and Anastasia were both employed by the Defendants as nurse practitioners from March 2021 through March 7, 2025. Rizzi Geriatric Associates provides geriatric and psychiatric care services at various assisted living facilities and nursing homes throughout Southwest Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin H. Yormak, Esq. YORMAK EMPLOYMENT & DISABILITY LAW 27200 Riverview Center Blvd., Suite 109 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Telephone: (239) 985-9691 Facsimile: (239) 288-2534 E-mail: byormak@yormaklaw.com RUST-OLEUM CORP: $1.5MM Deal in Greenwashing Suit Gets Final OK --------------------------------------------------------------- Kraig D. Jennett and Maram T. Salaheldin, writing for Clark Hill, report that on October 2, 2025, a federal judge in California gave final approval to a proposed settlement resolving a class action lawsuit against Rust-Oleum Corporation, centered around allegedly deceptive sustainability or green marketing claims (i.e., "greenwashing"). The case focused on Rust-Oleum's popular Krud Kutter cleaning products, which had been labeled as "Non-Toxic" and "Earth Friendly", with consumers alleging these labels misrepresented the actual chemical contents and environmental safety of the products. The settlement included agreement by Rust-Oleum to pay $1.5 million and make changes to its green marketing claims. This settlement highlights the increasing legal scrutiny companies face when making sustainability or green claims and underscores the importance of clarity and substantiation. What were the allegations? In the lawsuit, Bush v. Rust-Oleum Corp. (N.D. California), the plaintiffs alleged that Rust-Oleum's labeling of certain Krud Kutter products was false and misleading because it claimed the products were "Non-Toxic" and "Earth Friendly" even though the products contained substances that could pose risks to humans, animals, and the environment. Plaintiffs argued that consumers were likely to be misled by the prominent front-label claims, especially when compared to the less conspicuous technical disclosures on back labels or in online documentation. In support of their claims, plaintiffs pointed to the United States Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (16 CFR Part 260 or the "Green Guides"), which provide examples of the FTC's views on how reasonable consumers are likely to interpret certain claims. Initiated in 2020, the case survived both a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment filed by Rust-Oleum, with the court finding, among other things, that: -- The Green Guides were not dispositive in determining how a reasonable consumer is likely to interpret a claim; however, "whether the plaintiff's asserted definitions are reasonable will be for the jury to decide as part of the overall reasonable-consumer test." -- Whether the language on the back of product packaging can adequately qualify the "Earth Friendly" claim on the front, such that consumers are not misled, is a triable issue of fact. The court noted that the language on the back label "is in small type and the defendant's own surveys provide evidence that most consumers do not read it." -- "Puffery" is a statement that "is extremely unlikely to induce consumer reliance", and "the term 'Earth Friendly' is not so general or nonspecific as to make it 'extremely unlikely' that a consumer would rely on it." What are the settlement terms? After over five years of litigation, the court approved a final settlement, which includes: -- Rust-Oleum will pay $1.5 million to resolve the claims. -- After legal fees and costs, approximately $550,000 will be distributed to eligible class members, with any unallocated, unclaimed, or undeliverable funds to be distributed to environmental and consumer advocacy organizations, including Earthjustice and Mamavation. -- Rust-Oleum agreed to permanently remove the term "Non-Toxic" from all Krud Kutter product labels. -- Rust-Oleum may continue to use the term "Earth Friendly" but only with a clearly visible qualifying asterisk, directing consumers to detailed disclosures on the back of the product, such as "Contains no inorganic phosphates, hazardous solvents, or environmentally harmful surfactants." The court found this combination of monetary and injunctive relief sufficient, particularly given the changes to product labeling and marketing practices. What are the key takeaways for product manufacturers and marketers? This settlement offers several important lessons for companies that want to make green marketing claims about their products or services: 1. Avoid overly broad claims: Terms like "Non-Toxic" or "Earth Friendly" may be impactful from a marketing standpoint, but their vagueness makes them difficult to substantiate. Qualifying claims or making them more targeted may help reduce the risk of claims being challenged as untrue or misleading. 2. Ensure claims can be substantiated: Companies must ensure that green claims can be and are backed by reliable, scientific evidence. This can be demonstrated by, for example, aligning with the Green Guides or meeting certain commonly-accepted standards. 3. Use clear and conspicuous qualifications: If any claims require qualification, those statements must be clearly visible and understandable to consumers. Asterisks and back-label explanations may help but only if they are prominent and not buried in fine print. 4. Remedies are not just financial: Companies facing class actions often face both monetary settlements, fines, or penalties, as well as behavior change obligations. For example, they may be required to change labels or stop making certain claims. 5. Class action litigation is increasing and lengthy: While regulators such as the FTC or state attorneys general may also bring greenwashing actions, there is a notable rise in private class actions in this space. These cases can be costly and take years to resolve, including extensive media coverage. As customers increasingly demand more sustainable products, companies understandably want to meet that demand. However, overstating or misrepresenting the sustainability of their products or services can come with a steep cost, including financial and reputational harm. Even the best intentions can face legal challenges, but adequate substantiation and legal review can help reduce the risk. Clark Hill's ESG & Sustainability advisory practice deploys multidisciplinary attorneys, consultants, and professionals to advise clients across industries and sectors. Our team includes experienced Environmental & Natural Resources, Corporate, and Litigation attorneys, who counsel clients on a range of issues, including EPR requirements and how to navigate current and emerging compliance obligations. [GN] SAMPSON BLADEN: Court Certifies Gbete FLSA Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEANNE LYLIANE GBETE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, V. SAMPSON BLADEN OIL COMPANY, INC. d/b/a/ Han-Dee Hugo's, Case No. 5:23-cv-00355-BO-KS (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Boyle entered an order granting in part and denying without prejudice in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), for court-authorized notice to be issued under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and for appointment of class counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). FLSA collective action is certified as follows: "All individuals who were, are, or will be employed at the Defendant SBOC or Han Dee Hugo's North Carolina gas stations and/or convenience stores who worked as store managers or in similar positions within the past three (3) years preceding June 26, 2023 through the date of judgment or final disposition in this action, and who were misclassified as exempt by the Defendant, and, were not compensated for their hours above 40 per week during any workweek within three (3) years prior to the commencement of this action, through the present." The Plaintiff shall meet and confer with defendant within 14 days of the date of entry of this order regarding appropriate notice to the collective. The Plaintiff shall file a proposed notice with the Court not more than 21 days from the date of entry of this order. The Plaintiff's motion for Rule 23 class certification is denied without prejudice to refiling within 14 days of the date of entry of this order with a revised class definition. The Defendant shall have ten (10) days within which to respond, and the plaintiff shall have seven (7) days to file any reply. The Court is not convinced that the plaintiff's proposed class is sufficiently specific, as it appears to cover both putative class members who were notified that they were eligible for premium overtime, but were not paid for such, as well as putative class members who were misclassified as exempt. Accordingly, and as the Stafford decision was issued after briefing had been completed in this case, the Court will deny plaintiff's motion for Rule 23 class certification without prejudice. Plaintiff will be permitted to refile her motion to certify a NCWHA class, and incorporate any arguments raised in the instant motion, in order to ensure that the proposed class is not overly general and is clearly defined. The Plaintiff alleges that defendant misclassified her as a salaried, exempt employee and that her primary duty was not management. The Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and payment of all owed, earned, and promised wages under the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA). The Plaintiff began working for defendant in 2016 as a cashier. The Plaintiff was promoted to store manager in 2018 and worked for the defendant until she left her employment in January 2022. The Defendant operates approximately 110 gas stations and convenience stores throughout North Carolina. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=djisPh at no extra charge.[CC] SANOFI SA: Consumers Appeal Decision in Heartburn Medication Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Megan Butler, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a massive class action involving thousands of plaintiffs who claim they developed cancer from the heartburn medication Zantac came before an 11th Circuit panel on Friday, October 10. The multidistrict litigation went off the rails after a federal judge granted summary judgment against more than 2,450 users of Zantac, ruling that they had failed to produce reliable expert testimony necessary to support their claims. On appeal, the consumers argue the lower court improperly weighed the science and came to its own conclusion rather than evaluating the reliability of the experts' methods to be brought before a jury. They disclosed a slate of highly credentialed experts on general causation who said that the contaminant NDMA in Zantac is a potential carcinogen, but many were excluded for several different reasons. "This court should reaffirm the admonition that judges must not trade their black robes for white lab coats," the consumers wrote in their brief. U.S. Circuit Judge Adalberto Jordan said the lower court may have been a bit too thorough in its review of the expert opinions. The Barack Obama appointee noted that some of the things U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg criticized the experts for in her order appear to be more fit for a jury to decide after cross-examination. "Not every reliability deficiency leads to exclusion," Jordan said. The defendants, which consist of multiple pharmaceutical companies and retailers, argue the individual plaintiffs could have disputed Rosenberg's order and bring forward new evidence but refused to do so. However, in the consumers' view, they were prevented from doing so because Rosenberg consolidated the numerous individual claims into a master complaint. While intended to address common, cross-cutting legal issues, they contend the Obama appointee's move barred them from individually pleading any of the arguments differently. The three-judge panel disputed arguments from the companies who manufactured and sold the drug that federal law supersedes the consumers' negligence claims. The judges appeared to support the validity of the consumers' arguments that multiple companies failed to ensure that Zantac and other ranitidine products were properly handled, stored and transported. "Negligent storage wouldn't be preempted," Senior U.S. District Judge Virginia Covington said, sitting in from the Middle District of Florida. According to the evidence and testimony presented by the consumers, the medication's active ingredient, ranitidine, naturally breaks down over time into a dangerous carcinogen known as N-Nitrosodimethylamine, or NDMA. They claim the companies should have known that improper handling could cause NDMA to form in ranitidine products over time in storage and by exposure to heat, moisture and humidity. Additionally, the companies failed to warn that consumers were at an elevated risk of developing cancer if the products were consumed with high-nitrate foods or consumed daily over several months. The pharmaceutical companies, which include Sanofi, GSK and Pfizer, fought back against claims the consumers suffered monetary losses from purchasing the medication, which was pulled off the shelves by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2020. On Nov. 1, 2019, the FDA announced that its recent testing showed "unacceptable levels" of NDMA in Zantac and other ranitidine drugs, requesting that all manufacturers recall their products and cease all future sales. "A risk can render a product less than it was sold for," Jordan said. Following the withdrawal, scientists around the world compared the cancer rates between people who took ranitidine and those who did not, finding those who took it developed cancer at higher rates than those who did not, according to the consumers' complaint. U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa, a Donald Trump appointee, rounded out the panel. The judges did not signal when they intend to issue a ruling. [GN] SAVARA INC: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in E.D. Pa. ---------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Savara Inc. ("Savara" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:SVRA) and certain officers.   The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and docketed under 25-cv-05147, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Savara securities between March 7, 2024 and May 23, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Savara securities during the Class Period, you have until November 7, 2025, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Savara is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on rare respiratory diseases. The Company's lead product candidate is MOLBREEVI (also referred to as "molgramostim"), an inhaled granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor. MOLBREEVI is in a Phase 3 IMPALA-2 pivotal clinical trial for the treatment of autoimmune pulmonary alveolar proteinosis ("aPAP"), a chronic and debilitating rare lung disease characterized by the abnormal build-up of surfactant in the alveoli of the lungs. Savara has consistently represented that, based on investments in MOLBREEVI and its purported "track record of strong fiscal discipline," the Company is "sufficiently capitalized" as early as through 2026 and as late as into the second half of 2027. In December 2024, Savara began a rolling submission of a Biologics License Application ("BLA")-i.e., a submission requesting approval to distribute a biologic product across state lines-to the United States ("U.S.") Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for MOLBREEVI for the potential treatment of aPAP (the "MOLBREEVI BLA"). In a press release announcing the submission, the Company touted that, "[g]iven the positive results of the pivotal, Phase 3 IMPALA-2 trial, we believe MOLBREEVI demonstrates a favorable benefit-risk profile and could fundamentally change the way aPAP is treated," and that "[i]nitiation of the [MOLBREEVI] BLA is an important milestone in potentially addressing the unmet need in aPAP, for which there are no approved medicines in the U.S. and Europe." Moreover, Savara represented that it "expect[ed] to complete the submission of the rolling [MOLBREEVI] BLA by the end of [the first quarter of] 2025." To obtain FDA approval of the MOLBREEVI BLA, Savara must submit, among other things, information regarding MOLBREEVI's chemistry, manufacturing, and controls ("CMC"). Specifically, the CMC section of a BLA must provide a detailed account of a product's manufacturing process-including process validation runs, stability testing, and analytical method validation-and detailed descriptions of facilities, equipment, and quality control procedures. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the MOLBREEVI BLA lacked sufficient information regarding MOLBREEVI's chemistry, manufacturing, and/or controls; (ii) accordingly, the FDA was unlikely to approve the MOLBREEVI BLA in its current form; (iii) the foregoing made it unlikely that Savara would complete its submission of the MOLBREEVI BLA within the timeframe it had represented to investors; (iv) the delay in MOLBREEVI's regulatory approval increased the likelihood that the Company would need to raise additional capital; and (v) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On May 27, 2025, Savara issued a press release "announc[ing] that the Company received [a refusal to file] letter from the FDA for the [MOLBREEVI BLA] as a therapy to treat patients with [aPap]." Specifically, Savara revealed that "[u]pon preliminary review, the FDA determined that the [MOLBREEVI BLA] was not sufficiently complete to permit substantive review and requested additional data related to Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC)." Market analysts were quick to comment on the Company's announcement. For example, on May 27, 2025, Guggenheim published a report (the "Guggenheim Report") revising its price target for Savara to $8.00, down from the previous $9.00. Guggenheim stated that it "do[es] not expect Savara to be profitable on a continuing basis until 2028 and expect[s] the company may raise additional capital, potentially through a secondary stock offering that could dilute the holdings of current investors." In addition, the Guggenheim Report noted that the "CMC Delay Could Lead to Change in Molbreevi Manufacturing Strategy," predicting a delayed market launch sometime in early 2027, a year later than initially expected. On this news, Savara's stock price fell $0.90 per share, or 31.69%, to close at $1.94 per share on May 27, 2025. Then, after the end of the Class Period, on August 13, 2025, Savara issued a press release announcing the Company's financial results for the second quarter of 2025. Among other things, the press release revealed that, contrary to the Company's prior representations that it would complete its rolling submission of the MOLBREEVI BLA in the first quarter of 2025, Savara now "plan[s] to resubmit the [MOLBREEVI] BLA in December [2025]." Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. [GN] SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Court Narrows Claims in Bailey Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KORINE BAILEY, v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02749-TLP-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Thomas L. Parker entered an order granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion to dismiss as follows: The Court dismisses without prejudice any claim related to the supplemental and dependent life insurance premiums. Plaintiff's claim that the tobacco surcharge violates Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) survives, but only because she has plausibly alleged that Plan materials fail to notify participants that a physician's recommendation will be accommodated. The Court denies the Motion as to Plaintiff's claims that Sedgwick's assessment and collection of the tobacco surcharge and its retention of the surcharge funds at the expense of the Plan violate fiduciary duties imposed by sections 1104(a)(1) and 1106(b)(1). The Court also denies the motion over Plaintiffs claims that Sedgwick violated fiduciary duties imposed by section 1104(a)(1) when it allegedly failed to adequately review the Plan materials and communications and failed to include information required by 29 C.F.R. section 2590.702(f)(4)(v). All other claims that Sedgwick breached fiduciary duties for other conduct are dismissed without prejudice. Sedgwick provides claims and productivity management services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ACSf1G at no extra charge.[CC] SEMLER SCIENTIFIC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Strive Inc. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Semler Scientific, Inc. (NASDAQ: SMLR) related to its sale to Strive, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, Semler shareholders will receive 21.05 Class A common shares of Strive per share of Semler. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/semler-scientific-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] SIX FLAGS: Martinez Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.T. and JUDY MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SIX FLAGS ENTERTAINMENT CORP., MAGIC MOUNTAIN LLC, PARK MANAGEMENT CORP., and SIX FLAGS CONCORD LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01769-KES-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Nov. 13, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., will move the Court for an Order: (i) granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Classes and Subclasses; (ii) appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and (iii) appointing Bursor & Fisher, P.A., as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The class action lawsuit seeks to put an end to systemic civil rights violations being committed by the Defendants against disabled individuals at Defendants' Six Flags-owned and/or operated theme, amusement, and/or water parks, which are located in and throughout the United States and California. The Defendants have violated Title III of the Americans with Disability Act of 1990 ("ADA"), and the Unruh Civil Rights Act through their disability accommodations request procedure. The Plaintiffs request certification of the following two Nationwide Classes and two California Subclasses. The Nationwide Classes seek only injunctive relief pursuant to Title III of the ADA1 and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), while the California Subclasses seek statutory minimum and treble damages pursuant to the Unruh Act2 under Rule 23(b)(3): 1. The Impermissible Inquiry Classes: a. Nationwide Class: "All persons in the United States with an ADA-qualifying disability who, from Dec. 26, 2020, to and through the date of final judgment in this action, submitted an IBCCES application for accommodations in connection with a planned visit to any of Defendants' theme, amusement, and/or water parks in the United States (the "Impermissible Inquiry Class" or "Nationwide Impermissible Inquiry Class")." b. California Subclass: "All members of the Nationwide Impermissible Inquiry Class who, from Dec. 26, 2021, to and through the date of final judgment in this action, submitted an IBCCES application in connection with a planned visit to any of Defendants' theme, amusement, and/or water parks in California (the "Impermissible Inquiry Subclass" or "California Impermissible Inquiry Subclass")." 2. The Inability To Seek Accommodations ("ISA") Classes: a. Nationwide Class: "All persons in the United States with an ADA-qualifying disability who, from Dec. 26, 2020, to and through the date of final judgment in this action, visited any of Defendants' theme, amusement, and/or water parks in the United States and attempted to request an accommodation at the Parks without having registered in advance with IBCCES, and were therefore unable to seek or obtain reasonable accommodations at the Defendants' facilities on the day of the individual's park visit (the "ISA Class" or "Nationwide ISA Class")." b. California Subclass: "All members of the Nationwide ISA Class who, from Dec. 26, 2021, to and through the date of final judgment in this action, visited any of Defendants' theme, amusement, and/or water parks in California and attempted to request an accommodation at any of the California Parks without having without having registered in advance with IBCCES, and were therefore unable to seek or obtain reasonable accommodations at Defendants' facilities on the day of the individual's park visit (the "ISA Subclass" or "California ISA Subclass")." Six Flags is an American amusement park company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hN404W at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Julia K. Venditti, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com jvenditti@bursor.com SKAGIT REGIONAL: Settles Privacy Class Suit With $20 Cash Payments ------------------------------------------------------------------ Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that a class action settlement with Skagit Regional Health will offer $20 cash payments to patients whose personally identifiable and/or health information was allegedly shared with third parties without consent after accessing the hospital's patient portal. The Skagit Regional Health class action settlement received preliminary approval from the Washington State Superior Court on September 5, 2025 and covers patients who navigated to, signed up for, logged in, or used the hospital's patient portal between May 1, 2021 and September 5, 2025. The court-approved website for the Skagit Regional Health settlement can be found at https://www.sutherpixelsettlement.com/. Skagit Regional Hospital settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form by November 3, 2025 will be able to receive a one-time cash payment of $20 in the form of a check, the class action settlement website details. To submit a settlement claim form online, Skagit Regional Hospital class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID found in their copy of the settlement notice. Those who believe they are a class member but did not receive a notice should contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and receive their login ID. Alternatively, a class member can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the address listed near the top of the form. Skagit Regional Hospital claims forms must be submitted online or by mail by November 3, 2025. The settlement adds that all checks will become void and expire 180 days after they are issued. There will be a hearing to consider the final approval of the Skagit Regional Health settlement on November 21, 2025. Should the court ultimately approve the settlement, eligible class members can expect to receive their cash payments 30 days after the final court approval and after any appeals are resolved. The initial Skagit Regional Health class action lawsuit claimed that confidential personal information provided to the hospital's patient portal was shared with third-party sites without patients' knowledge or consent. [GN] SKECHERS USA: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Calls, Lee Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER NICOLE LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SKECHERS USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 232937861 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 11th Jud. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., October 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending unwanted telemarketing communications to the cellular phone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered harm, says the suit. Skechers USA, Inc. is a footwear and apparel company, headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: mitchell@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com SOHO HOUSE: M&A Investigates Merger With Affiliates of MCR Hotels ----------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC, headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating -- Soho House & Co Inc. (NYSE: SHCO) related to its merger with affiliates of MCR Hotels. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Workhorse shareholders will receive $9.00 per share in cash. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/soho-house-co-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- TEGNA Inc. (NYSE: TGNA) related to its sale to Nexstar Media Group, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, TENGA shareholders will receive $22.00 per share in cash. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/tegna-inc-2/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- WideOpenWest, Inc. (NYSE: WOW) related to its sale to affiliates of DigitalBridge Investments, LLC and Crestview Partners. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, WideOpenWest shareholders will receive $5.20 in cash per share. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/wideopenwest-inc-2/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Eastern Michigan Financial Corporation (OTCMKTS: EFIN) related to its merger with Mercantile Bank Corporation. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, each outstanding share of Eastern Michigan common stock will be converted into the right to receive $32.32 in cash and 0.7116 shares of Mercantile common stock. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/eastern-michigan-financial-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 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] SPECIALTYCARE INC: Dorta Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dorta et al v. SpecialtyCare, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00892 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge William Campbell, Jr. will grant in part and deny in part the Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 class certification. The Motion will be granted as to the (b)(2) class, granted as to the (b)(3) class as redefined above, and denied as to the notice. The Court is not persuaded that substantial difficulties will arise in managing the class. As such, superiority is met. The Court has considered the (b)(3) class and finds that the class definition, as reshaped herein, is both definite and relies upon objective criteria to determine class membership. Indeed, the proposed definition was ascertainable. The Court excluded from the proposed definition: (1) from the entire class, SNs who signed general releases; and (2) from the unlawful restraint-of-trade subclass, SNs who resigned within 30 days and those qualified for a contractual exception to the repayment obligation. The record in this case contains sufficient information to determine membership in these three exclusionary categories. Thus, ascertainability is met. SpecialtyCare provides health care clinical facilities. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V7vqzq at no extra charge.[CC] SPRING EQ: Mason Wins Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Mason v. Spring EQ LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-01833-MWC-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court certifies the following class for the Plaintiff's cause of action: Do Not Call Registry Class: "All persons in the United States who, within the four years prior to the filing of this action: (1) were sent a text message by or on behalf of the Defendant; (2) more than one time within any 12-month period; (3) where the person's cellular telephone number had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days; (4) for the purpose of selling the Defendant's products and services; and (5) whose cellular telephone number Defendant obtained solely from LendingTree." Excluded from the class are the Defendant, any entity in which The Defendant has a controlling interest, and the Defendant's officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, employees, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. Also excluded from the class is any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this matter, and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff. The Plaintiff Robert Mason is appointed as class representative, and Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Edelsberg Law PA, and Shamis and Gentile PA are appointed as class counsel to represent the interests of the class and the subclass. The Court is not persuaded by the Defendants' arguments regarding predominance. Conversely, Plaintiff has established that predominance is met based on Plaintiff’s theory that Defendant subjected the class to unlawful telemarketing solicitations. Thus, common issues predominate. Certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2). The case arises under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). On Jan. 24, 2024, the Plaintiff visited LendingTree's website. The Defendant then purchased Plaintiff's lead information, including his residential cellular telephone number, from LendingTree. The Defendant subsequently began "bombarding" Plaintiff with telemarketing text messages on his cell phone from January 2024 through at least February 2024. The Defendant is a national mortgage lender that provides consumer financial services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ab81bF at no extra charge.[CC] SSP AMERICA: Torres Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled ARIANA TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and OLGA HARBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SSP AMERICA, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CU043037C, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court, Southern District of California on September 25, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02524-BEN-AHG to the proceeding. The complaint was brought on a class basis and alleged that Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as various provisions of the California Labor Code, and Industrial Wage Orders. The particular causes of action include: (1) conversion of gratuities; (2) unlawful confiscation of tips under the FLSA; (3) failure to pay wages; (4) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (5) failure to pay all wages upon termination or resignation; and (6) unfair business practices and unfair competition. SSP America, Inc. acquires, manages, and operates airport concessions. The Company offers airport concessions, such as food and beverage, cocktail and lounge, and news and gift retail facilities in the United States.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Luis E. Lorenzana, Esq. Joshua Souk, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 232-0441 Facsimile: (619) 232-4302 E-mail: lllorenzana@littler.com jsouk@littler.com STAPLES CONTRACT: Court OK's Stipulation to Modify Sched Order -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAVIER FELIX, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), v. STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:24-cv-01968-KK-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kenly Kiya Kato entered an order granting the Parties' stipulation to modify scheduling order (second request): 1. The Fact Discovery Cut-Off and all subsequent dates and deadlines in the Operative Scheduling Order are vacated. 2. The Parties shall meet and confer and submit a Proposed Scheduling Order within 30 days of the issuance of the Court's Order on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Staples manufactures industrial machinery. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vPAm5H at no extra charge.[CC] STAPLES CONTRACT: Felix Bid for Class Certification Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Javier Felix v. Staples Contract & Commercial LLC et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-01968-KK-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kenly Kiya Kato entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiff fails to satisfy the commonality and predominance requirements of Rule 23(a)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) for both the rounding class and the meal premium class. Hence, the Plaintiff's request to certify the rounding class and the meal premium class is denied. Further, because certification of those classes is denied, the Court also denies certification of the derivative waiting time subclass and wage statement subclass. The Plaintiff alleges various violations of the California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code arising from Defendant's employment of Plaintiff. On June 5, 2025, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion for class certification. In the instant Motion, the Plaintiff modifies the classes and now seeks certification of the following classes: 1. Rounding Class: "All non-exempt, hourly employees who work or worked for the Defendant in California at any time between Oct. 4, 2022 and May 4, 2024, and were paid based on the Defendant's policy and practice of rounding shift-start and -end times." 2. Meal Premium Class: "All non-exempt, hourly employees who work or worked for the Defendant in California at any time between Oct. 4, 2022 and the date of the order granting class certification and who worked at least one shift of six hours or more." 3. Derivative Waiting Time Subclass: "All non-exempt, hourly employees who work or worked for the Defendant in California at any time between Oct. 4, 2022 and the date of the order granting class certification and whose employment by Defendant has since ended." 4. Derivative Wage Statement Subclass: "All non-exempt, hourly employees who work or worked for the Defendant in California and received at least one wage statement at any time between July 29, 2023, and the date of the order granting class certification." Staples manufactures industrial machinery. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Qd030F at no extra charge.[CC] STEPHEN JAMES: Best Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nathan Best, et al., v. Stephen C. James, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00299-RGJ-RSE (W.D. Ky.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class action under Rule 23(a) and (b)(1), appointing the Plaintiffs Nathan Best, Matthew Chmielewski, and Jay Hicks as representatives for the certified Class, and appointing Kaplan Johnson Abate & Bird LLP as counsel for the certified Class. The Complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties under Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). Therefore, the only remedy available to participants in the Plan is Plan-wide relief, including the restoration of losses. The Plaintiffs propose the following class: "all persons who were participants in the ISCO Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP") when it sold its ISCO shares effective Feb. 14, 2018, and/or beneficiaries of those participants." Excluded from the Plaintiff Class are the individual Defendants and their immediate families, current directors of ISCO and their immediate families, and these individuals' legal representatives, successors, heirs, and assigns. The Plaintiffs allege, on behalf of the proposed class, that Defendant Steve James, the trustee and independent fiduciary of the Plan, sold the Plan's holdings in ISCO stock to the Kirchdorfer Defendants—who also owed fiduciary duties to the Plan and its participants—for a fraction of what the stock was actually worth, as the Kirchdorfer Defendants well knew. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Yd7pUm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Clark C. Johnson, Esq. Michael T. Leigh, Esq. Burt A. (Chuck) Stinson, Esq. KAPLAN JOHNSON ABATE & BIRD LLP 710 W. Main St., 4th Floor Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 416-1630 E-mail: cjohnson@kaplanjohnsonlaw.com mleigh@kaplanjohnsonlaw.com cstinson@kaplanjohnsonlaw.com SYNGENTA CROP: Products Contain Harmful Chemicals, Simpson Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL SIMPSON, Plaintiff v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. N25C-09-213 PQT (Del. Super., September 25, 2025) is a class action seeking to recover from Defendants compensation for injuries and damages caused by the exposure of Plaintiff to Paraquat from Defendants' Paraquat products, plus costs of suit; strict product liability; failure to warn; negligence; breach of express warranties and implied warranty of merchantability; and fraudulent misrepresentation. 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 Plaintiff used Defendants' Paraquat products regularly and frequently over a period of many years. As a result of Plaintiff's many years of regular, frequent, and prolonged exposure to Defendant's Paraquat products, the Plaintiff contracted Parkinson's disease, 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 SYNGENTA CROP: Vickery Sues Over Paraquat Herbicide's Health Risks ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES VICKERY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION LLC, CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Case No. N25C-10-042 PQT (Del. Super., October 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for strict products liability and negligence. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of products containing the herbicide Paraquat. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to adequately warn consumers of the risk of severe neurological injury caused by chronic, low-dose exposure to Paraquat. As a result of being exposed to Paraquat, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals developed Parkinson's disease, Parkinsonism, says the suit. Syngenta Crop Protection LLC is a manufacturer of crop protection products, doing business in Delaware. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. is a subsidiary of the global energy company, Chevron Corporation, headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raeann Warner, Esq. COLLINS PRICE WARNER WOLOSHIN 8 East 13th Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-4600 Email: raeann@cpwwlaw.com - and - Aimee H. Wagstaff, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 N. Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: Awagstaff@wagstafflawfirm.com TEKNI-PLEX INC: Holmstrom Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info --------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW HOLMSTROM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEKNI-PLEX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-05713 (E.D. Pa., October 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between October 25, 2024, and December 7, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Tekni-Plex, Inc. is a packaging and material solutions provider for healthcare and consumer products, headquartered in Wayne, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com TIFFANY AND COMPANY: Illegally Installs Data Trackers, Dawkins Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL DAWKINS, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. TIFFANY AND COMPANY, a New York corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01277-KES-HBK (E.D. Cal., September 25, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all California residents who have accessed and used www.tiffany.com, a website that Defendant owns and operates. According to the complaint, the Defendant surreptitiously installs and operates tracking software on the website without providing users with adequate notice or obtaining their informed consent. The software is intentionally deployed to accomplish Defendant's commercial objectives, including identity resolution, targeted advertising, and the monetization of consumer data. To achieve these goals, the Defendant enables third-party technologies, that function as unlawful pen registers and/or trap and trace devices, to capture detailed information about users' electronic communications such as Internet Protocol addresses, session data, clickstream activity, and form inputs in real time. These tools operate covertly and without judicial authorization, violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act where, as here, Plaintiff and Class Members did not consent to the interception, nor did Defendant secure a court order permitting such surveillance, says the suit. Tiffany and Company is a globally recognized luxury jewelry and specialty retailer, originally founded in New York City in 1837.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC 40729 Village Dr., Suite 8 - 1989 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com TOYOTA ARENA: Filing for Class Cert in Phoenix Due Nov. 21, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY ROBERT PHOENIX, et al., v. TOYOTA ARENA LLC, et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-02403-JWH-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Holcomb entered an order extending hearing date and briefing deadlines on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as follows: Nov. 21, 2025: Deadline to file class certification motion Jan. 23, 2026: Deadline to file opposition to class certification motion Feb. 27, 2026: Deadline to file Reply re class certification motion Mar. 17, 2026: Hearing on class certification motion A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jnjS2Z at no extra charge.[CC] TOYOTA MOTOR: Court Issues Discovery Order in "Siefke" ------------------------------------------------------ In the putative class action captioned as Philip Siefke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, and Connected Analytics Services, Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-406 (E.D. Tex.), Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Limited Jurisdictional Discovery. The Court found that the motion for discovery should be granted in part. This putative class action arises from the alleged unauthorized collection and dissemination of private information collected from vehicles owned or leased by Plaintiff Philip Siefke and other class members. On July 8, 2025, in lieu of filing an answer to the Plaintiff's class action complaint, Defendant Toyota Motor North America, Inc. filed its Motion to Compel Arbitration, arguing that each of the Plaintiff's claims are subject to a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement. That same day, Defendants Connected Analytical Services and Progressive Casualty Insurance Company each filed a Joinder to Toyota's Motion to Compel Arbitration, seeking the same relief but addressing their non-signatory status to the arbitration agreement at issue. On August 11, 2025, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Discovery seeking limited discovery related to the issue of contract formation discussed in the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration. Within the Motion to Compel Arbitration, to argue the Court must enforce the arbitration agreement at issue, Toyota alleges facts not found in the Complaint. In support of the factual background it offers the Court, Toyota attaches to its Motion to Compel Arbitration the sworn declaration of Mike Edwards, Senior Manager for Privacy for Toyota. The Edwards Declaration references Toyota's policies, practices, mobile application, Connected Services and the flow to activate the Connected Services, Terms of Use, and business records, including records found in Toyota's CTP Database. The Court noted that within the Edwards Declaration, Toyota makes several allegations without attaching any of the referenced records. Specifically, Toyota's records purportedly show that the Plaintiff downloaded the Toyota App and enrolled his 2021 Toyota RAV4 on the App, that the Plaintiff activated Connected Services via the Toyota App on March 21, 2021, that the Plaintiff activated Connected Services on March 9, 2024, again accepting the Terms of Use in effect at that time, that Toyota's records reflect that the Plaintiff pressed Accept when he went through the flow in March 2021 and March 2024, thereby enrolling in Connected Services, that when the Plaintiff went through the consent flow described above on March 21, 2021, the Plaintiff enrolled in Service Connect but originally declined to enroll in Toyota's Insure Connect service on March 21, 2021, that the Plaintiff later accepted Insure Connect on March 7, 2023, agreeing to allow Toyota to share his driving data with Connected Analytical Services, that when the Plaintiff went through the consent flow described above on March 9, 2024, he enrolled in Service Connect but declined enrollment in Insure Connect, at which time Toyota ceased sharing his driving data with Connected Analytical Services, and that on January 22, 2025, the Plaintiff used the Toyota App to opt-out of receiving Connected Services. The Edwards Declaration is not accompanied by any of these records for the Court's consideration, and these records have presumably not been shared with the Plaintiff. The Court applied the legal standard that the Federal Arbitration Act requires an expeditious and summary hearing, with only restricted inquiry into factual issues. Therefore, courts have generally denied arbitration-related discovery absent a compelling showing that such discovery is required. The party seeking to compel arbitration must prove the existence of an agreement to arbitrate by a preponderance of the evidence. Based on the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration, the Court found that it cannot determine whether the Plaintiff consented to the arbitration agreement in Toyota's Terms of Use, and thus whether a contract was formed between the Plaintiff and Toyota. The Court noted that Toyota has referenced various records in its possession to establish the validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreement at issue but has failed to attach these records to its briefing for the Court's consideration, and these records have presumably not been shared with the Plaintiff if he is contesting the contract's formation. The Court concluded that additional discovery and briefing is needed for a thorough evidentiary record so the Court can determine whether to compel arbitration or not. Accordingly, the Court ordered the parties to conduct limited arbitration-related discovery on the issue of contract formation, with respect to the records referenced in the Edwards Declaration. The parties have twenty-one days from the date of this Order to complete such discovery. The Court further ordered both parties to file supplemental briefs on the issue of contract formation within fourteen days of the close of the discovery. Therefore, the Court ordered that the Plaintiff's Motion for Limited Jurisdictional Discovery and Memorandum of Law in Support is hereby granted in part. The limited arbitration-related discovery on the issue of contract formation must be completed within twenty-one days from the date of this Order. It is further ordered that Toyota and the Plaintiff file supplemental briefs on the issue of contract formation within fourteen days of the close of the limited arbitration-related discovery. A copy of the court's decision signed on 10th of October is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7oihFo from PacerMonitor.com TYSON FOODS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Massive Corn Dog Recall ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Moore, writing for MeatingPlace, reports that Tyson Foods and its subsidiary The Hillshire Brands Co. are facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging negligence and breach of warranty after recalling 58 million pounds of corn dog and sausage-on-a-stick products potentially contaminated with wood fragments. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the lawsuit accused Tyson and Hillshire of selling adulterated and unsafe products under the State Fair and Jimmy Dean brands distributed nationwide between March 17 and Sept. 26, 2025. The recall, announced Sept. 27 by USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service, followed multiple consumer complaints, including at least five injuries. Plaintiff Eric Wilim of Illinois seeks to represent all consumers who purchased the recalled products, alleging the companies failed to properly design, inspect and monitor production processes and delayed warning the public. The complaint asserts violations of consumer protection laws, breach of implied warranty and unjust enrichment, claiming consumers paid for food unfit for human consumption. The lawsuit also argued that Tyson's refund process is inadequate because most consumers no longer have packaging or receipts. It seeks class certification, restitution, damages and injunctive relief to prevent similar incidents. [GN] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Arbitration Clause Remains Valid, Fed. Ct. Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ iclg reports that a Canadian appeal court has ruled that Uber rejecting a challenge by a British Columbia man who sought to pursue a class action over allegedly misleading food delivery fees. Canada's Federal Court of Appeal has dismissed an attempt by a British Columbia man against Uber, ruling that the company's arbitration clause remains valid and enforceable. Handing down its decision on 7 October, the court upheld a Federal Court decision that stayed the proceedings in favour of arbitration, finding that none of the arguments advanced by the appellant justified circumventing the parties' agreement to arbitrate. THE BACKGROUND Arthur Lin launched prospective class-action proceedings in the Federal Court alleging that Uber, through its Uber Eats platform, engaged in unlawful drip pricing contrary to section 52 of the Competition Act. He claimed that prices displayed to consumers were misleading because additional fees meant the stated prices were unattainable. The action, however, was met with an immediate hurdle: the arbitration clause in Uber's terms of service. In 2024, the Federal Court held that challenges to the validity of the clause must, in the first instance, be determined by the arbitrator under the competence-competence principle. Mr Lin appealed, arguing that the clause was unenforceable on several grounds, including provincial, section 25 of the Federal Courts Act, incapacity of performance and unconscionability. THE APPEAL Mr Lin advanced three principal grounds for resisting arbitration. First, he contended that Ontario's Consumer Protection Act 2002 rendered the arbitration clause invalid, particularly subsections 7(2) and 8(1), which restrict mandatory arbitration in consumer contracts and preserve access to class proceedings. Second, he drew on section 25 of the Federal Courts Act, which confers jurisdiction on the Federal Court where claims arise under federal law and no other court has jurisdiction. Third, he argued that the arbitration clause was either incapable of performance, since the Alternative Dispute Resolution Institute of Canada (ADRIC) does not adjudicate class proceedings, or was unconscionable given the imbalance in bargaining power between Uber and consumers, and the economic impracticality of individual arbitration. Uber countered that consumer protection statutes cited by Mr Lin did not apply to proceedings in the Federal Court, that section 25 could not be revived when it had not been pursued in the claimant's memorandum of argument, and that any residual questions as to capacity or fairness must be determined by the arbitrator. THE DECISION The Court of Appeal rejected each of Lin's submissions. On the consumer protection arguments, it held that the Ontario legislation expressly preserved access to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice but did not extend to the Federal Court. Justice Mactavish wrote: "Mr Lin's proposed class proceeding was brought in the Federal Court. It is not an action in Ontario's Superior Court of Justice, and subsection 7(2) thus has no application here". The court also declined to entertain Lin's reliance on section 25 of the Federal Courts Act, noting that it had not been properly pursued on appeal and in any event lacked merit. "It would be both unfair to Uber and inappropriate for us to consider Mr. Lin's section 25 argument," Justice Mactavish observed. On incapacity of performance, the court acknowledged ADRIC's refusal to administer class arbitrations but found this did not render the arbitration clause inoperable because individual claims, including Mr Lin's, could still be arbitrated. "An arbitration agreement will only be incapable of performance when it is impossible for the parties to obtain the specific arbitral procedures for which they bargained," the court held. Turning to unconscionability, the court reaffirmed that both inequality of bargaining power and an improvident bargain must be established. While Uber's standard form contract reflected a disparity of resources, there was no evidence of dependence or vulnerability, and nor was there evidence of an objectively unfair bargain. The court therefore dismissed the appeal, confirming that Mr Lin's claim must proceed, if at all, in arbitration. The judgment concluded: "Given my finding that Mr Lin has not established that the Federal Court erred in granting a stay of his action, I would dismiss this appeal." THE PARTIES In Lin (appellant) v Uber (respondent), the appellant was represented by Simon Lin of Evolink Law Group. The defendant was represented by Gillian Kerr, Patrick Williams and Tanner Lorenson of McCarthy Tetrault. [GN] UNITED PARCEL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 20, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON RIETHEIMER and those similarly situated, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00477-GPG-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge N. Reid Neureiter entered an order granting the joint motion to amend scheduling order and continue status conference. The scheduling order is further amended to extend the following deadlines: -- Affirmative expert disclosure: Jan. 16, 2026 -- Rebuttal expert disclosure: Feb. 13, 2026 -- Discovery cut-off: March 20, 2026 -- Dispositive motion deadline: April 20, 2026 -- Deadline for class certification: April 20, 2026 United is an American multinational shipping & receiving and supply chain management company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DW91AA at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED PARKS: Court Narrows Claims in Marks Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID MARKS, et al., v. UNITED PARKS & RESORTS, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01992-MMA-KSC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anello entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss: The Court dismisses the Plaintiffs' nationwide class allegations and claims; dismisses the CLRA claim in its entirety; dismisses the UCL claim to the extent it is predicated on the CLRA; dismisses Plaintiff Galstian's breach of contract, express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional misrepresentation claims for failure to satisfy Rule 9(b). The motion is otherwise denied. Should Plaintiffs wish to file an amended complaint, they must do so on or before October 31, 2025. Defendant may then respond within the time prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Any defendants not named and any claim not realleged in the amended complaint will be considered waived. The FAC pleads Plaintiff Galstian's purchase date of July 29, 2023, but does not identify the precise ticket page she viewed that day, quote the language on that page, or allege the specific "regular" price/"sale" presentation she encountered. While the cited webpages and screenshots are illustrative, they are not tied to Plaintiff Galstian's transaction or exposure. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion is granted with respect to the Plaintiff Galstian's negligent and intentional misrepresentation claims. However, the Defendant's motion is denied as to the Plaintiff Marks' negligent and intentional misrepresentation claims, which satisfies Rule 9(b). The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant represented on its websites that park tickets had a "regular" strike-through price reflecting the prevailing market value and were being sold at a discounted "sale" price, and that the Plaintiffs relied on those representations when purchasing. The Plaintiffs seek to represent the following five classes: Nationwide Class: "all persons who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased one or more ticket advertised at a discount on the SeaWorld or Sesame Place." SeaWorld Fake Sale Subclass: "all persons who, while in the state of California and within the applicable statute of limitations, purchased one or more Sea World tickets at a discount." Sesame Fake Sale Place Subclass: "all persons who, while in the state of California and within the applicable statute of limitations purchased one or more Sesame Place tickets at a discount." Sea World Hidden Fees Subclass: "all persons who, while in the state of California and within the applicable statute of limitations and until June 30, 2024, purchased one or more Sea World tickets and paid hidden fees." Sesame Place Hidden Fees Subclass: "all persons who, while in the state of California and within the applicable statute of limitations and until June 30, 2024, purchased one or more Sesame Place tickets and paid hidden fees." The Defendant is a theme park company that sells tickets to theme parks in California including SeaWorld and Sesame Place. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nFGisx at no extra charge.[CC] VONS COMPANIES: Class Cert. Discovery Extended to Oct. 31 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERTO SANDOVAL CARRILLO, v. THE VONS COMPANIES, INC. et al., Case No. 8:25-cv-00191-SRM-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Serena Murillo entered an order granting the Parties' stipulation to continue class discovery deadline, as follows: 1. The deadline to complete class certification discovery is extended from Oct. 1, 2025, to Oct. 31, 2025; and 2. All other dates and deadlines set forth in the class certification scheduling order remain unchanged. On Sept. 18, 2025, the Parties filed a Stipulation to Continue Class Discovery Deadline to October 31, 2025. The Parties contend that they have diligently been meeting and conferring about certain discovery disputes relating to class discovery and will need to schedule an informal discovery conference with Judge Karen E. Scott to address these discovery issues. The Parties also represent that they are diligently meeting and conferring on selecting deposition dates for their respective Person Most Knowledgeable. Vons is a Southern California-based supermarket chain. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ygfJnn at no extra charge.[CC] WASHINGTON TIMES: Ramirez Seeks More Time for Responsive Pleading ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID RAMIREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. THE WASHINGTON TIMES LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02619-JEB (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) extending the deadline for the Defendant to file its responsive pleading to Nov. 3, 2025 and (2) extending the deadline for the Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification from the deadline set by the local rules (90 days after the filing of a Complaint) to a date to be determined in the future, once the Court sets a deadline for the close of class-certification related discovery. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(f), the Plaintiff represents that the parties met and conferred and Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff's request. Washington is an American conservative daily newspaper. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NRwEet at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stan M. Doerrer, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF STAN M. DOERRER PLLC 950 N. Washington Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (703) 348-4646 Facsimile: (703) 348-0048 E-mail: stan@doerrerlaw.com - and - Katrina Carroll, Esq. CARROLL SHAMBERG LLC 111 West Washington Street Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (872) 215-6205 Mobile: 847-848-1384 E-mail: katrina@csclassactions.com WATA INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jacob Knight, et al., v. Wata, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01873 (D. Colo., Filed July 28, 2022), the Hon. Judge Gordon P. Gallagher entered memorandum regarding unopposed motion for extension of time to file motion for class certification filed by Jason Dohse, Jacob Knight, Jack Cribbs. -- Motion referred to Mag. Judge Timothy P O'Hara. The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Wata operates as a video games company.[CC] WATA INC: Knight Seeks More Time to File Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB KNIGHT, JACK CRIBBS, JASON DOHSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WATA INC., COLLECTORS UNIVERSE, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01873-GPG-TPO (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time of 30 days for the Plaintiffs to file their Third Motion for Class Certification as follows: Oct. 29, 2025 The Plaintiffs' third motion for class certification due. Nov. 28, 2025 The Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' third motion for class certification due. Dec. 15, 2025 The Plaintiffs' reply to the Defendant's opposition due. An extension would allow the parties more time to try to resolve the matter rather than increasing additional fees and creating work on motion practice that may be unnecessary, the Plaintiffs contend. The Plaintiffs believe that the parties will be able to reach determinations about the status of this case within the next 30 days and it is anticipated that another request for an extension is unlikely absent unforeseeable circumstances. Wata operates as a video games company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9yOoYh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Janeen Carlberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JANEEN CARLBERG 1912 N. Broadway, Suite 106 Santa Ana, CA 92706 Telephone: (714) 665-1900 E-mail: jcarlberg@lawfirmoc.com WATERCO: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 17, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Perez v. Waterco of the Central States, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00922 (S.D. Cal., Filed April 17, 2025), the Hon. Judge Roger T. Benitez entered an order granting in part and denying in part the parties' Joint Motion Amending Scheduling Order. -- The close of Class and Fact Discovery is Jan. 16, 2026. -- The deadline to file the Motion for Class Certification is Feb. 17, 2026. -- The Status Conference scheduled for Oct. 3, 2025, remains on calendar. -- The Court denies without prejudice the parties' request to reset the deadline to bring discovery disputes to Feb. 9, 2026. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. Waterco provides a wide selection of water filters, and purifiers.[CC] WEST VIRGINIA: Judge Grants Class Status in Vaccine Exemption Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chris Schulz, writing for West Virginia Public Broadcasting, reports that an ongoing lawsuit over exemptions to the state's school vaccine requirements in Raleigh County has expanded its scope statewide. In September attorneys filed a motion to the Raleigh County Circuit Court to include everyone seeking a religious exemption to school vaccine requirements into a single legal class or entity. Judge Michael Froble granted class action status, meaning his ruling will affect the more than 500 people who have obtained exemption certificates from the Department of Health. According to those present in the courtroom, Froble argued that the creation of a class action would prevent each recipient of an exemption from filing their own lawsuits all over the state. Froble also ruled Wednesday, October 8, that the court would not distinguish between those seeking religious, philosophical or conscientious exemptions. Separate suits in Kanawha and Berkeley Counties are still moving forward on different legal grounds. Froble said he would issue a final ruling by the end of November, but the state Supreme Court of Appeals will likely take up the issue next year. [GN] WESTERN REFINING: Court Stays Peoples Suit ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNATHON PEOPLES, individually, and on behalf of members of the general public similarly situated, v. WESTERN REFINING RETAIL, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00480-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order as follows: 1. The Defendant Western Refining Retail, LLC's motion to stay is granted; 2. This action is stayed pending resolution of the earlier-filed Gaston putative class action; 3. The parties shall file a joint report addressing the status of the Gaston putative class action 120 days from the entry of this order, and thereafter, every 120 days; 4. The parties shall file a joint report within 14 days of the resolution of the Gaston putative class action, setting forth the parties' positions as to the impact of the resolved case on the instant litigation, whether the stay in this case should be lifted, and the parties' respective positions concerning further scheduling of this case, as necessary; and 5. All other case management dates, conferences, and filing requirements are vacated. On March 19, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against the Defendants. In the complaint, the Plaintiff asserts claims pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 382 on behalf of himself and a putative class of others similarly situated based on alleged violations of the California Labor Code, seeking to recover among other claims, unpaid wages, overtime wages, lawful meal periods, lawful rest periods, accurate wage statements, timely payment of wages, and failure to indemnify (reimburse). The proposed class to be certified is defined as: "All current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees who worked for any of the Defendants within the State of California at any time during the period from four years preceding the filing of [Plaintiff's] Complaint to final [judgment] and who reside in California." Western is a company that operated retail gas stations. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4OdP3W at no extra charge.[CC] WPP PLC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Misleading Investors ------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins LLP informs stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired WPP PLC (NYSE: WPP) common stock between February 27, 2025 and July 8, 2025. WPP is a global communications company that offers advertising, media management, consultancy, public relations, as well as branding and identity services worldwide. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that WPP PLC (WPP) Mislead Investors Regarding its Business Prospects According to the complaint, defendants created the false impression that they possessed reliable information pertaining to the Company's projected revenue outlook and anticipated growth while also minimizing risk from seasonality and macroeconomic fluctuations. The complaint alleges that in truth, WPP's optimistic reports of its potential to achieve new client bid wins and retain its existing clientele fell short of reality; the Company's media arm was not equipped to compete effectively and had begun to lose market share to its competitors. Plaintiff alleges that on July 9, 2025, WPP published a trading update for the first half of 2025, alerting investors that the company had allegedly "seen a deterioration in performance as Q2 has progressed." The Company attributed its misfortune to both "continued macro uncertainty weighing on client spend and weaker net new business than originally anticipated," at least in part due to "some distraction to the business" as a result of the continued restructuring of WPP Media a.k.a. GroupM. On this news, the price of WPP's common stock declined from a closing market price of $35.82 per share on July 8, 2025, to $29.34 per share on July 9, 2025, a decline of about 18.1%. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against WPP PLC. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class should contact Robbins LLP. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click https://robbinsllp.com/wpp-plc/ All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action against WPP PLC Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] YOUTH BEAUTY: Crumwell Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- DENISE CRUMWELL, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YOUTH BEAUTY CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07974 (S.D.N.Y., September 25, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.youthbeauty.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on September 22, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Full Machine Made Human Hair Wig Cool Short Straight With Bangs Pixie Cut from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. The Plaintiff was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Youth Beauty Corporation operates the website that offers beauty supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ********* 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 ***