251017.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, October 17, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 208
Headlines
BARCLAYS PLC: Court Sets Nov. 29 as Claims Bar Date
BEIERSDORF INC: Hicks Sues Over Deceptive Ointment Labels
BOLTED IRON: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cabezas Suit Alleges
BOOHOOPLC.COM INC: Martinez Sues Over Website Inaccessibility
BOYD GAMING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bragg Alleges
CAMPANELLI PRODUCTS: Moran Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Website Access
CCI FINANCIAL: Faces Gurule Suit Over Private Data Breach
CCI FINANCIAL: Faces Gurule Suit Over Unprotected Private Info
COLOURPOP COSMETICS: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
CORNWALL SECURITY: Jecker Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
DANAHER CORP: Critelli and Theodore Sue Over Race Discrimination
DISCORD INC: Fails to Protect Private Info, Nguyen Says
DIVA FAM: Williams Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users
EXCELLED CARE: Rocha Seeks to Recover Caregivers' Unpaid OT
FAIRBANKS GOLD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Skinner Alleges
GLASSFRONTS SYSTEMS: Wyman Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
HURRICANE TREE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rodriguez Alleges
LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Hall Files Suit Over TCPA Violation
MANNA BEVERAGES: Diggs Files Suit Over WARN Act Violation
MDL 3161: 5 Cannabis Vaporizer Price-fixing Suits Consolidated
MONTEREY MUSHROOMS: Smith Sues Over Compromised Personal Info
NATIONAL ELECTRIC: Quiroz PAGA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN: Sued Over Medical Services' Monopoly
ORTHOTECH LLC: Ferrell Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls
OUTCOMES ONE: Fails to Protect Personal, Health Info, Silva Says
OUTCOMES ONE: Fails to Protect Personal, Health Info, Wright Says
PAPA SOAP: Ibarra Sues Over Automatic Renewal of Subscriptions
PAYACTIV INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Stokes Alleges
PROSPER FUNDING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Sullivan Says
PURELY ELIZABETH: Faces Martinez Suit Over ADA Violation
QUALITY LANDSCAPE: Griggs Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Szabo Sues Over Illegal Genetic Info Collection
R&R 1579 BAKERY: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Rosario Suit Says
RAYMOND R. CONSTRUCTION: Zamora Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
RESOLVION LLC: Faces Jackson Suit Over Alleged Labor Law Violations
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Court OKs Amendment in "Albert"
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: $29.2MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 16
STATE FARM: Brewer Sues Over Deceptive Insurance Claims
SWEDISH MATCH: Siegert Sues Over Mislabeled ZYN Nicotine Pouches
TRANSUNION LLC: Illegally Collects Personal Info, Weitz Says
UNION HOME: Faces Washington Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info
UNITED AIRLINES: Lawrey Seeks Proper Wages for Flight Attendants
UNITED STATES: Elbert et al. Sue Over Unpaid Crop Indemnities
VERADIGM INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Schnauffer Alleges
VISCATA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Suit Claims
WEX INC: Patterson Sues Over Unfair Business Practices
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Hit with $966MM Verdict Over Cancer Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NC Court Reopens 13 Cases Against Continental Tire
*********
BARCLAYS PLC: Court Sets Nov. 29 as Claims Bar Date
---------------------------------------------------
In the Matter of Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC, Respondents.
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
File No. 3-21181
BARCLAYS FAIR FUND
DISTRIBUTION PLAN NOTICE
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission authorized
this Notice.
This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.
Who is Eligible to Participate in the Fair Fund?
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Barclays American Depository
Receipts ("ADRs") that traded on the New York Stock Exchange under
the symbol BCS and/or Barclays ordinary shares that traded on the
London Stock Exchange under the symbol BARC between June 26, 2019,
and March 27, 2022, both dates
inclusive (the "Relevant Period"), you may be entitled to receive
payment from the Barclays Fair Fund, created in the captioned
proceedings (the "Fair Fund"), subject to other provisions of the
Plan of Distribution. The Fair Fund will be allocated to harmed
investors in two stages: first to investors who suffered Recognized
Losses on Barclays ADRs, and then, from any remaining funds, to
investors who suffered Recognized Losses on Barclays ordinary
shares, due to Barclays' violations. In the view of the Commission
staff, this methodology constitutes a fair and reasonable
allocation of the Fair Fund. Please review this Distribution Plan
Notice in full to determine if and how you can make a claim.
The administration of the Fair Fund is governed by a Plan of
Distribution (the "Plan") approved by the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") on
August 1, 2025. The Plan provides for the distribution of a Fair
Fund, comprised of civil money penalties paid by Barclays PLC
("Barclays") and Barclays Bank PLC ("Barclays Bank") (collectively,
the "Respondents") in the above-captioned matter. A copy of the
Plan, which contains a description of eligibility and other
conditions of participation, can be found at
www.BarclaysFairFund.com. Pursuant to the Plan, you may be entitled
to receive a monetary payment from the Fair Fund.
What is this All About?
On September 29, 2022, the Commission issued the Order instituting
and simultaneously settling cease-and-desist proceedings against
the Respondents. In the Order, the Commission found that Barclays
Bank failed to put into place any internal control around the
real-time tracking of securities being offered or sold from its
shelf registration statement filed with the Commission. As a result
of this failure, between June 26, 2019, and March 9, 2022, Barclays
Bank offered and sold approximately $17.7 billion of securities in
excess of the amount that it had registered with the Commission, in
violation of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act. In
connection with the over-issuances and internal control failure,
Barclays and Barclays Bank restated their year-end 2021 audited
financial statements filed with the Commission.
The Commission ordered the Respondents to pay a $200,000,000.00
civil penalty to the Commission. The Commission ordered the funds
paid pursuant to the Order be held in an account at the United
States Treasury pending a decision whether the Commission, in its
discretion, would seek to distribute the funds. On March 30, 2023,
the Commission issued an order that created the Fair Fund, pursuant
to Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, so the penalty
paid can be distributed to harmed investors.
On November 13, 2023, the Commission appointed KCC Class Action
Services, LLC as the Fund Administrator for the Fair Fund, in
accordance with the Plan of Distribution approved by the SEC. You
can view and download a copy of the Plan on the Fund
Administrator's webpage at www.BarclaysFairFund.com
or on the SEC's website at
www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2025/34-103625-dp.pdf.
Who Should Submit a Claim?
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Barclays American Depository
Receipts ("ADRs") and/or Barclays ordinary shares between June 26,
2019, and March 27, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Relevant
Period"), you may be eligible for a distribution from the Fair
Fund.
Excluded from the Fair Fund are: (a) The Respondents; (b) Present
or former officers or directors of Respondents or any assigns,
creditors, heirs, distributees, spouses, parents, dependent
children or controlled entities of any of the foregoing Persons or
entities; (c) Any employee or former employee of the Respondents or
employee or former employee of any of its affiliates who has been
terminated for cause or has otherwise resigned, in connection with
the conduct described in the Order; (d) Any Person who, as of the
Claims Bar Date, has been the subject of criminal charges related
to the conduct described in the Order or any related Commission
action; (e) Any firm, trust, corporation, officer, or other entity
in which Respondents has or had a controlling interest; (f) The
Fund Administrator, its employees, and those Persons assisting the
Fund Administrator in its role as the Fund Administrator; or (g)
Any purchaser or assignee of another Person's right to obtain a
recovery from the Fair Fund for value; provided, however, that this
provision shall not be construed to exclude those Persons who
obtained such a right by gift, inheritance or devise.
Participation in the Barclays Fair Fund does not require you to
release any rights or potential claims you may have against the
Respondents, including but not limited to the Respondents' past and
present directors, officers, promoters, advisers, agents,
affiliates, nominees, assigns, creditors, or controlled entities.
However, this limitation does not apply to matters arising from or
related to the administration of the Fair Fund.
In order to be considered for eligibility, each Preliminary
Claimant must submit a properly completed Claim Form, together with
acceptable supporting documentation to the Fund Administrator on or
before the Claims Bar Date of November 29, 2025, 11:59 PM, PST.
We encourage you to submit your claim via the online claim filing
portal, on the website at www.BarclaysFairFund.com. Paper copies of
the Claim Form will be made available upon request.
Determination of Distribution Payments
Distribution Payments shall be determined in accordance with the
Plan, including the Plan of Allocation (Exhibit A to the Plan). You
can view and download a copy of the Plan on the Fund
Administrator's webpage
at www.BarclaysFairFund.com.
How to File a Claim
If you believe you may be eligible for a Distribution Payment (see
"Who Should Submit a Claim" above) and would like to be considered
for a distribution from the Fair Fund, you must follow the
instructions and submit
a completed Claim Form.
We encourage you to file your Claim Form via the online filing
portal on the Fair Fund website www.BarclaysFairFund.com. You may
also submit your Claim Form by mail to the address below. The
submission of the Claim Form and the receipt and acceptance of a
distribution is not intended to be a release
of rights and claims against any of the Respondents.
Claims Bar Date: November 29, 2025, 11:59 PM, PST
More Information:
Website: www.BarclaysFairFund.com
Email: Info@BarclaysFairFund.com
Write:
Barclays Fair Fund
c/o KCC Class Action Services
Fund Administrator
P.O. Box 301175
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1175
U.S.A.
Phone: United States: 1-888-663-7195
United Kingdom: (0) 808-304-8623
Special Notice to Brokers and Nominees
If you purchased or held Barclays American Depository Receipts
("ADRs") and Barclays ordinary shares for the beneficial interest
of a person or organization other than yourself, within fourteen
(14) calendar days of receipt of this Distribution Plan Notice you
must:
1. Request additional copies of the Distribution Plan Notice from
the Fund Administrator, and, within fourteen (14) calendar days of
receipt of such copies, send copies by first-class mail directly to
beneficial owners; and/or
2. Provide a list of the names and last known addresses of the
beneficial owners (preferably in Excel format) to the Fund
Administrator by email to notifications@kccllc.com or by mail to
the following address:
Barclays Fair Fund
c/o KCC Class Action Services
Fund Administrator
P.O. Box 301175
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1175
U.S.A.
If you choose to mail the Distribution Plan Notice yourself, an
unlimited number of Plan Notices and Claim Forms may be downloaded
from the website at www.BarclaysFairFund.com. The Fund
Administrator may provide no more than fifty (50) additional copies
of Claims Packets for the purpose of
distribution to beneficial owners. If you choose the second option,
KCC will send a copy of the Distribution Plan Notice and Claim Form
to the persons and/or entities whose names and addresses you
supply. All claims must be submitted by the Claims Bar Date.
In either case, you may obtain reimbursement for reasonable and
documented administrative costs actually incurred in connection
with forwarding the Distribution Plan Notice that would not have
been incurred but for the obligation to forward the Distribution
Plan Notice, upon submission of appropriate documentation to the
Fund Administrator, see paragraph 45 of the Plan of Distribution.
In Consultation with the Commission staff, out-of-pocket expenses
based on the following rates will be
considered reasonable:
* A maximum of $0.03 per Plan Notice and/or Claim Form, plus
postage at the pre-sort postage rate per Plan Notice and/or Claim
Form actually mailed;
* A maximum of $0.05 per email of the Plan Notice with a link to
online Claim Filing Portal; or
* $0.20 per name, address, and email address provided to the
Fund Administrator, up to a maximum amount of $1,500.00.
Contact information for the Fund Administrator
You may obtain further information, file a claim, and download a
copy of the paper Claim Form at the Fair Fund website at
www.BarclaysFairFund.com. If you have any questions, please reach
out to the Fund Administrator at:
Website: www.BarclaysFairFund.com
Email: Info@BarclaysFairFund.com
Write:
Barclays Fair Fund
c/o KCC Class Action Services
Fund Administrator
P.O. Box 301175
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1175
U.S.A.
Phone: United States: 1-888-663-7195
United Kingdom: (0) 808-304-8623
BEIERSDORF INC: Hicks Sues Over Deceptive Ointment Labels
---------------------------------------------------------
ESTHER HICKS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BEIERSDORF, INC, a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01208-SAB (E.D. Cal., September 15,
2025), arises from Defendant's deceptive branding strategy and
labeling of its Aquaphor Baby Healing Ointment and Aquaphor
Children's Healing Ointment.
According to the complaint, on the front of each product package
Defendant prominently states the products are "Hypoallergenic." The
packaging also states the products are "Healing Ointments" that
treat and/or relieve skin damaged by diaper rash and skin that is
chafed, chapped, cracked or has a minor, cut, scrape or burn.
However, the Plaintiff alleges that the said statements are not
true since these products contain lanolin alcohol, a common
allergen among infants and children. Lanolin was named contact
allergen of the year in 2023, by the American Contact Dermatitis
Society.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful
conduct and asserts claims for violations of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, and for
breach of express warranty.
Headquartered in Stamford, CT, Beiersdorf, Inc. manufactures and
sells skin care ointments. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer L. MacPherson, Esq.
Craig W. Straub, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: jmacpherson@crosnerlegal.com
craig@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
BOLTED IRON: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cabezas Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
HARRY DUVIAN ORDONEZ CABEZAS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOLTED IRON INC.; JUAN C H
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; MOSHE BEKERMAN; JUAN CARLOS HOLGUIN; and
MAGDA TEJADA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05560 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 3,
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 Cabezas was employed by the Defendants as a welder and a
construction worker.
Bolted Iron Inc. is engaged as a general contractor in the
construction business industry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
BOOHOOPLC.COM INC: Martinez Sues Over Website Inaccessibility
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOOHOOPLC.COM INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07623 (S.D.N.Y., September 15, 2025)
arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant allegedly failed to its website available in a manner
compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving blind
and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's
discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights
Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and New York State General
Business Law.
Headquartered in Elizabethtown, PA, Boohooplc.com Inc. owns and
operates the website, https://www.prettylittlething.com, which
offers clothing, jewelry & accessories for sale. [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
BOYD GAMING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bragg Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
KELVIN BRAGG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOYD GAMING CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-01884 (D. Nev., Oct. 3, 2025) arising out of the recent
data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against
the Defendant that involved the Plaintiff's and the proposed Class
Members personally identifying information.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Data Breach was a
direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and
reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to
protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII from a foreseeable and
preventable cyber-attack.
The Defendant maintained, used, and shared the PII in a reckless
manner. In particular, the PII was used and transmitted by
Defendant in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon
information and belief, the mechanism of the cyberattack and
potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members'
PII was a known risk to Defendant, and thus, Defendant were on
notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the PII from
those risks left that property in a dangerous condition.
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have
been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the
future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against
identity theft, says the suit.
Boyd Gaming Corporation is a casino entertainment company. The
Company owns and operates hotels, casino, and gaming properties.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan R. Ring, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC
3100 W. Charleston Blvd., Ste. 208
Las Vegas, NV 89102
Telephone: (725) 235-9750
Email: nring@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Grayson Wells, Esq.
John C. Roberts, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Email: gwells@stranchlaw.com
jroberts@stranchlaw.com
CAMPANELLI PRODUCTS: Moran Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Website Access
------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON MORAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAMPANELLI PRODUCTS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08189 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 3, 2025) alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.campanelli.shop/, 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.
Campanelli Products, LLC is a company that operates in the Cleaning
Products industry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
CCI FINANCIAL: Faces Gurule Suit Over Private Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
RICK GURULE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CCI FINANCIAL INC., d/b/a
CheckCityCashing.com, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00802 (D. Utah,
September 15, 2025) asserts claims arising from Defendant's failure
to properly secure and safeguard private information that was
entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and
transfer that information.
On or about April 3, 2025, the Defendant observed a network
disruption event as a result of unauthorized access to its IT
Network. Defendant then conducted a thorough review of the
potentially impacted data and on August 11, 2025, determined that
the impacted files may have contained personally identifiable
information belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members. However, it
took more than five months--on September 12, 2025--for the
Defendant to issue a public disclosure about the data breach.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this action individually and
on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals
against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust
enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of fiduciary
duty.
Headquartered in Provo, UT, CCI Financial Inc. is a financial
services company that provides wealth management services,
including financial planning and investment portfolio management.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason R. Hull, Esq.
Anikka T. Hoidal, Esq.
MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, PC
Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 456-7655
E-mail: jhull@mohtrial.com
ahoidal@mohtrial.com
- and -
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (858) 209-6941
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
jnelson@milberg.com
CCI FINANCIAL: Faces Gurule Suit Over Unprotected Private Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICK GURULE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CCI FINANCIAL INC., d/b/a
CheckCityCashing.com, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00133-AMA (D.
Utah, September 15, 2025) asserts claims arising from Defendant's
failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that
was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store
and transfer that information.
On or about April 3, 2025, the Defendant observed a network
disruption event as a result of unauthorized access to its IT
Network. Defendant then conducted a thorough review of the
potentially impacted data and on August 11, 2025, determined that
the impacted files may have contained personally identifiable
information belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members. However, it
took more than five months -- on September 12, 2025 -- for the
Defendant to issue a public disclosure about the data breach.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this action individually and
on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals
against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust
enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of fiduciary
duty.
Headquartered in Provo, UT, CCI Financial Inc. is a financial
services company that provides wealth management services,
including financial planning and investment portfolio management.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason R. Hull, Esq.
Anikka T. Hoidal, Esq.
MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, PC
Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 456-7655
E-mail: jhull@mohtrial.com
ahoidal@mohtrial.com
- and -
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (858) 209-6941
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
jnelson@milberg.com
COLOURPOP COSMETICS: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER
PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. COLOURPOP COSMETICS,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07624 (S.D.N.Y., September 15,
2025), arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant allegedly failed to make its website available in a
manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving
blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks
redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims
for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York
State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the
New York General Business Law.
Based in Oxnard, CA, Colourpop Cosmetics, LLC owns and operates the
commercial website, https://colourpop.com/, which offers cosmetics
for sale. [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
CORNWALL SECURITY: Jecker Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled J. JECKER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CORNWALL SECURITY SERVICES, INC.,
a California Corporation; BARBARA CORNWALL, an individual; RUSSELL
CORNWALL, an individual; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 25STCV20775, was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on September 15,
2025.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:25-cv-08755 to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the
California Business and Professions Code.
Cornwall Security Services, Inc. provides patrol, gatehouse/access,
professional, and video surveillance services. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael H. Brody, Esq.
Jason B. Edlinger, Esq.
LIGHTGABLER LLP
760 Paseo Camarillo, Suite 300
Camarillo, CA 93010
Telephone: (805) 248-7208
Facsimile: (805) 248-7209
E-mail: mbrody@lightgablerlaw.com
jedlinger@lightgablerlaw.com
DANAHER CORP: Critelli and Theodore Sue Over Race Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES CRITELLI and RYAN THEODORE, and all other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. DANAHER CORPORATION AND PALL CORPORATION, Defendants,
Case No. 6:25-cv-01780 (M.D. Fla., September 15, 2025) alleges
discrimination based upon age in violation of the Age
Discrimination Employment Act of 1967.
Allegedly, Defendant's Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Policy
fomented management behaviors that treated diverse applicants more
favorably than male Caucasian candidates. As a result, Caucasian
men have been systematically excluded from hiring and promotion
opportunities that are diverted to females and non-Caucasians.
Danaher Corporation operates globally, primarily in the life
sciences, diagnostics and biotechnology sectors. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 577-4761
Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
E-mail: medelman@forthepeople.com
- and -
Gregory R. Schmitz, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 North Orange Avenue, 15th Floor
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 204-2170
Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
E-mail: gschmitz@forthepeople.com
DISCORD INC: Fails to Protect Private Info, Nguyen Says
-------------------------------------------------------
TUAN NGUYEN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. DISCORD INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:25-cv-08668-SK (N.D. Cal., October 9, 2025) is a class action
complaint against the Defendant bringing causes of action for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard Representative Plaintiff's
and/or Class Members' personally identifiable information stored
within Defendant's information network, including, without
limitation, names, usernames, emails, limited payment information,
purchase histories, IP addresses, messages and attachments sent to
Customer Support or Trust & Safety Agents and government ID photos
(all referred to in the aggregate as "Private Information").
The Representative Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible
for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Representative
Plaintiff and thousands of other similarly situated persons in the
massive and preventable cyberattack that purportedly occurred on
September 20, 2025, by which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's
inadequately protected network and accessed the Private Information
which was being kept there (the "Data Breach"). While Defendant
claims the breach occurred as early as September 20, 2025, the
Defendant did not begin informing victims of the Data Breach until
October 3, 2025, and failed to inform victims when or for how long
the Data Breach occurred. Indeed, Representative Plaintiff and
Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach until they
received notice from Defendant informing them of it.
According to the complaint, the Defendant received highly sensitive
Private Information from Representative Plaintiff in connection
with the services/employment Representative Plaintiff obtained. As
a result, Representative Plaintiff's information was among the data
accessed by an unauthorized third party in the Data Breach.
The complaint alleges that the Representative Plaintiff spent time
dealing with the consequences of the Data Breach, which included
and continues to include, time spent verifying the legitimacy and
impact of the Data Breach, exploring credit monitoring and identity
theft insurance options, self-monitoring Representative Plaintiff's
accounts and seeking legal counsel regarding Representative
Plaintiff's options for remedying and/or mitigating the effects of
the Data Breach. This time has been lost forever and cannot be
recaptured.
The Representative Plaintiff suffered actual injury in the form of
damages to and diminution in the value of Representative
Plaintiff's Private Information-a form of intangible property that
Representative Plaintiff entrusted to Defendant, which was
compromised in and as a result of the Data Breach, asserts the
complaint.
Representative Plaintiff is an adult individual and was a resident
and citizen of the State of California.
Defendant is a for-profit enterprise with a principal place of
business located in San Francisco, California. Defendant is a
communication platform allegedly used by over two hundred million
people.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
Laura Van Note, Esq.
COLE & VAN NOTE
555 12th Street, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 891-9800
E-mail: sec@colevannote.com
lvn@colevannote.com
DIVA FAM: Williams Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users
-------------------------------------------------------------
DARNELL WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Diva Fam, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-11699 (N.D. Ill., September 26, 2025) is a civil rights
action against Diva Fam for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, https://trueseamoss.com, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
On August 11, 2025, the Plaintiff made an attempt to complete a
purchase of a pack of sea moss gummies on Trueseamoss.com. However,
while navigating the website, he encountered accessibility issues
that made the browsing and ordering experience frustrating and
inaccessible. After Plaintiff pressed the "Add to Cart" button, the
focus did not move to the opened cart dialog window, leaving him
without clear confirmation that the gummies had been added. These
access barriers have caused Trueseamoss.com to be inaccessible to,
and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired
persons, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Diva Fam's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
Diva Fam, Inc. operates the website that offers sea moss gels,
capsules, gummies, powders, and electrolytes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alison Chan, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street
Flushing, NY 11367
Office: (844) 731-3343
Direct: (929) 442-2154
Email: achan@ealg.law
EXCELLED CARE: Rocha Seeks to Recover Caregivers' Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
LUANA ALVES ROCHA a/k/a/ LUCAS ALVES ROCHA, BEATRIZ PRATES LIMA,
and JOSE MAXIMO VALENCIA AHUATZI, Plaintiffs v. EXCELLED CARE
CORP., PAULA CAICO, and ODILON CAICO RODRIGUES, Defendants, Case
No. 1:25-cv-12784 (D. Mass., September 26, 2025) is an action to
recover unpaid wages, specifically overtime pay, for work
Plaintiffs performed for the Defendants under the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wages law.
Throughout the Plaintiffs' employment, the Defendants failed to pay
them the required overtime pay of "time-and-a-half" as required by
state and federal law, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs seek, among other forms of relief, liquidated
damages, treble damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, as provided
for by the law.
The Plaintiffs previously worked for the Defendants providing
caregiving services to elderly patients in nursing home
facilities.
Excelled Care Corp. offers private in-home senior care with
principal office in Lexington, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Emma Hornsby, Esq.
GREATER BOSTON LEGAL SERVICES
197 Friend Street
Boston, MA 02114
Telephone: (617) 603-1564
E-mail: ehornsby@gbls.org
FAIRBANKS GOLD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Skinner Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SKINNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FAIRBANKS GOLD MINING, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:25-cv-00264 (D. Alaska, Oct. 7, 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.
The Plaintiff Skinner was employed by the Defendant as a mill
mechanic.
Fairbanks Gold Mining, Inc. was founded in 1997. The Company's line
of business includes the mining of gold ores from lode deposits.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack Garyth Poulson, Esq.
POULSON LAW LLC
636 Harris Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-6529
Email: jack@poulson.law
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLC
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
GLASSFRONTS SYSTEMS: Wyman Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RICHARD WYMAN, SPENCER WYMAN, NATHAN WARMAN, and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GLASSFRONTS SYSTEMS,
LLC, a Florida For-Profit Corporation, JASON WILLIAMS,
individually, and RICHARD WILLIAMS, individually, Defendants, Case
No. 50-2025-CC-012778-XXXA-MB, was removed from the Circuit Court
for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County,
Florida, to the United States District Court of the Southern
District of Florida on September 26, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:25-cv-81205 to the
proceeding.
The Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants in Counts I through III
of the complaint are for alleged overtime wages and other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Glassfronts Systems, LLC is a subcontractor company.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Keith Michael Stern, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 2000
Miami, Florida 33130
Telephone: (561) 288-9031
E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
HURRICANE TREE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rodriguez Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
DENIS OMAR RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HURRICANE TREE EXPERTS, INC.; and
ROBERT MARIANETTI, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-05622 (E.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 7, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff Rodriguez was employed by the Defendants as a
laborer.
Hurricane Tree Experts, Inc. operates a business that specializes
in, tree removal, trimming and pruning of trees, tree stump
grinding, brush removal, land clearing, and the sale of firewood
throughout Long Island, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Barnhorn, Esq.
ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Hall Files Suit Over TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
DARRIN HALL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
25-cv-12388 (N.D. Il., October 9, 2025) is a class action complaint
against the Defendant bringing causes of action for making
robocalls to cell phones and home phones, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.
The Plaintiff alleges that Liberty University made unsolicited
pre-recorded telemarketing calls to his cellular telephone number
as well as those of putative class members.
The complaint relates that the Plaintiff's telephone number is
assigned to a cellular telephone service. He never consented to
receive telemarketing calls from Defendant. He never requested
information from Defendant or any other institution of higher
learning. He also never enrolled in any academic activities with
Defendant. Despite that, the Defendant made pre-recorded
telemarketing calls to the Plaintiff multiple times during October
of 2021 to March, 2022.
Plaintiff Darrin Hall is a citizen and resident of the Northern
District of Illinois.
Defendant Liberty University is a Virginia corporation that makes
telemarketing calls into this District.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Francisco Fernandez Del Castillo, Esq.
DEL CASTILLO LAW GROUP, LLC
11 E Adams Street #1401
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312)-216 0111
E-mail: francisco@delcastillolawgroup.com
MANNA BEVERAGES: Diggs Files Suit Over WARN Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
SACHAE DIGGS, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff's v. Manna Beverages MBV-CA, LLC, a Delaware
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-at-01370 (E.D. Cal., October
9, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for
violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act, as well as the California WARN Act, and the California Labor
Code.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff began working in the
Defendant's West Sacramento location on October 1, 2023, where she
worked without incident.
On October 2, 2025, Plaintiff, along with hundreds of her
colleagues, was suddenly shut out of her MBV workplace, receiving
notice of MBV's intent to permanently close the West Sacramento
location on October 3, 2025, accompanied by instructions to return
MBV belongings.
The complaint alleges that MBV failed to provide 60 days of advance
notice of the permanent closure as required under both the WARN Act
and the CA WARN Act.
The Plaintiff files this action seeking damages and to ensure
compliance with the law requiring the requisite notice or severance
payment in connection with the permanent closure at the West
Sacramento facility and that Defendant not solicit releases of
claims of any employees without informing them of the pendency of
this action and their right to pursue claims for violations of the
WARN Act and CA WARN Act in addition to claims for violations of
the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and immediate injunctive
relief on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
employees, precluding Defendant from circumventing the requirements
of the WARN Act, the CA WARN Act, and the California Labor Code.
Plaintiff Sachae Diggs was an employee at MBV and is a resident of
Antelope, California.
Defendant MBV is a Delaware Corporation, with its principal address
listed at 3309 Collins Ln., Louisville, Kentucky, 40245.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sloan C. Bailey, Esq.
Paul K. Pfeilschiefter, Esq.
BAILEY LAW PARTNERS, LLP
1010 B Street, Suite 320
San Rafael, CA 94901
Telephone: (415) 966-2919
E-mail: paul@workerrightsattorney.com
MDL 3161: 5 Cannabis Vaporizer Price-fixing Suits Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation consolidates two cases from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California and one each
from the Southern District of Florida, Northern District of
Illinois and the District of Nevada, all to the Northern District
of California, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge
Vince Chhabria for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The litigation
is renamed from "In re: CCell Closed Cannabis Oil Vaporization
Systems and Components Products Litigation," MDL No. 3161 to "In re
CCell Closed Cannabis Oil Vaporization Systems and Components
Products Antitrust Litigation," MDL No. 3161.
Defendants, Shenzhen Smoore Technology Co., Ltd. and Smoore
International Holdings Ltd. and Jupiter Research LLC, Greenlane
Holdings, Inc., 3Win Corp. and CB Solutions, LLC d/b/a Canna Brand
Solutions support centralization in in the Northern District of
California.
These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
defendants entered into a price-fixing agreement and market
allocation scheme to raise the price of closed cannabis oil
vaporizer systems manufactured by Smoore. All plaintiffs allege
that defendants agreed to create a minimum price floor for the
products, prevented the purchase of competing products, and shared
price and customer information with one another. Four of the
actions are brought on behalf of putative nationwide classes of
indirect purchasers of Smoore's closed cannabis oil vaporization
products, and the fifth consolidated action is brought on behalf of
a similar class of direct purchasers.
The panel concluded that the Northern District of California is the
most appropriate transferee district for this litigation, where the
first filed and most advanced actions are pending before Judge
Chhabria. He has consolidated the three direct purchaser actions
that were before him and related an indirect purchaser action to
that litigation. Fully-briefed motions to dismiss are pending in
those cases.
The actions are premised on the same factual allegations, and there
will be significant overlap in discovery, notes the panel.
Centralization should eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly as to class
certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their
counsel, and the judiciary, it concludes.
A full-text copy of the court's October 1, 2025 transfer order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3161-Transfer_Order-9-25.pdf
MONTEREY MUSHROOMS: Smith Sues Over Compromised Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA SMITH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONTEREY MUSHROOMS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:25-cv-08213 (N.D. Cal., September 26, 2025) arises out of the
recent targeted ransomware attack and data breach on Defendant's
network that resulted in unauthorized access to the highly
sensitive data of thousands of individuals and employees, including
Plaintiff.
According to the complaint, a ransomware group known as INC RANSOM
claimed responsibility for the cyberattack and posted about the
breach on their dark web leak site on September 5, 2025. As a
result of the data breach, Class Members suffered ascertainable
losses in the form 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, emotional distress, and the
present risk of imminent harm caused by the compromise of their
sensitive personal information.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding
of Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII that Defendant collected and
maintained, and for Defendant's failure to provide timely and
adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their PII
had been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown,
unauthorized party.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of herself and
the Class for: (i) negligence, (ii) breach of implied contract
(iii) invasion of privacy (iv) breach of fiduciary duty, and (v)
declaratory judgment.
Monterey Mushrooms, LLC is a limited liability company that owns
seven mushroom farms across North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park E #1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
NATIONAL ELECTRIC: Quiroz PAGA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as ISAAC BAEZ QUIROZ, on behalf of the State of
California in Plaintiff's representative capacity as a private
attorney general, Plaintiff vs. NATIONAL ELECTRIC WORKS
INCORPORATED, a California corporation; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 25CU046880C, was removed from the Superior
Court of California, San Diego County to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02690-GPC-DDL to
the proceeding.
The Class Action asserts a claim for unpaid overtime, in addition
to several other wage-and-hour claims, styled under state law,
stemming from Plaintiff's employment with NEW.
National Electric Works (NEW) is a full service Electrical and
Telecommunications solutions provider specializing in Utility,
Healthcare, Biotech, Military and Commercial installation and
service, with its principal place of business in San Diego,
California.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Kevin V. DeSantis, Esq.
Bradley A. Lebow, Esg.
DUNN DESANTIS WALT & KENDRICK, LLP
750 B Street, Suite 2620
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 573-4488
Facsimile: {619) 255-4868
E-mail: kdesantis@ddwklaw.com
blebow@ddwklaw.com
NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN: Sued Over Medical Services' Monopoly
---------------------------------------------------------------
CEMENT AND CONCRETE WORKERS DC BENEFIT FUND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE NEW YORK
AND PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-05571
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 3, 2025) alleges violation of the Sherman Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has market power in the
market for acute inpatient hospital services. It abuses its market
power in its dealings with self-funded employers, unions, health
insurers, and their vendors. Defendant's market power results from,
among other things, its large size, significant barriers to entry
in the market, the comprehensive range of healthcare services it
offers, the nature of the market for hospital services, patient
demand, and employers', unions' and insurers' need to include
access to the Defendant's hospitals—as well as its other
facilities and providers—in at least some of their provider
networks in insurance plans that cover people who live and/or work
in New York City.
The Defendant is engaged in anticompetitive conduct relating to
"steering" and, more specifically, the Defendant's aggressive
"anti-steering" tactics. Insured patients typically do not pay the
full cost of their medical care, instead, their employer or
insurance company does, so patients are often price-insensitive
when choosing where to receive medical care, says the suit.
The New York And Presbyterian Hospital is a New York health system
providing a comprehensive range of healthcare services across
several campuses in New York City and its surrounding regions.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yinka Onayemi, Esq.
Jamie Crooks, Esq.
Michael Lieberman, Esq.
FAIRMARK PARTNERS, LLP
400 7th Street, NW, Suite 304
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (619) 507-4182
Email: yinka@fairmarklaw.com
jamie@fairmarklaw.com
michael@fairmarklaw.com
- and -
Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
Scott Jacobsen, Esq.
HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA
& CHEVERIE LLP
112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 213-8311
Email: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com
sjacobsen@hrsclaw.com
ORTHOTECH LLC: Ferrell Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
AMBER FERRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ORTHOTECH, LLC d/b/a SMILESET, Defendant,
Case No. 6:25-cv-00330-JAR (E.D. Okla., September 15, 2025) alleges
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the
Oklahoma Telephone Solicitation Act of 2022.
Allegedly, the Defendant and/or its affiliates, agents, and/or
other persons or entities acting on Defendant's behalf violated the
TCPA by causing multiple telephone solicitation calls to be
initiated to Plaintiff and other Class members in a 12-month
period, despite their registration of their telephone numbers on
the National Do Not Call Registry.
Headquartered in West Palm Beach, FL, Orthotech, LLC provides
prosthetics and orthotics. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew D. Alison, Esq.
233 S. Detroit Ave. STE 200
Tulsa, OK 74120
Telephone: (918) 347-6169
E-mail: matthew@iaelaw.com
- and -
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (508) 221-1510
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
OUTCOMES ONE: Fails to Protect Personal, Health Info, Silva Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA SILVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OUTCOMES ONE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
6:25-cv-01871-RBD-LHP (M.D. Fla., September 26, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health
information and personally identifiable information stored within
Defendant's information network.
On July 1, 2025, upon information and belief, unauthorized
third-party cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and Class
Members' private information as hosted with Defendant, with the
intent of engaging in the misuse of the private information,
including marketing and selling Plaintiff's and Class Members'
private information.
The complaint alleges that Defendant disregarded the rights of
Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully,
recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate
and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class
Members' private information was safeguarded, failing to take
available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data, and
failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols,
policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for
internal use.
Outcomes One, Inc. is a health care technology service provider
that offers digital platforms and related services to pharmacies,
payers, and pharmaceutical manufacturers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
OUTCOMES ONE: Fails to Protect Personal, Health Info, Wright Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VIRGINA WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OUTCOMES ONE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
6:25-cv-01873 (M.D. Fla., September 26, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health
information and personally identifiable information stored within
Defendant's information network.
On July 1, 2025, upon information and belief, unauthorized
third-party cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and Class
Members' private information as hosted with Defendant, with the
intent of engaging in the misuse of the private information,
including marketing and selling Plaintiff's and Class Members'
private information.
According to the complaint, the Defendant disregarded the rights of
Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully,
recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate
and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class
Members' private information was safeguarded, failing to take
available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data, and
failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols,
policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for
internal use.
Outcomes One, Inc. is a health care technology service provider
that offers digital platforms and related services to pharmacies,
payers, and pharmaceutical manufacturers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
PAPA SOAP: Ibarra Sues Over Automatic Renewal of Subscriptions
--------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO IBARRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PAPA SOAP LLC, a CONNECTICUT entity, d/b/a
WWW.NOWATACLEAN.COM, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02393-BAS-AHG
(S.D. Cal., September 14, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating
California's Automatic Renewal Law by: (1) failing to provide
"clear and conspicuous" disclosures mandated by California law; and
(2) failing to provide an acknowledgment to consumers that includes
the automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms, the
cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a
manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer.
The Plaintiff alleges violations of California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, California's
False Advertising Law, and California's Unfair Competition Law.
Moreover, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendant from the ongoing
violations of California law, as well as seek damages, punitive
damages, restitution, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
Headquartered in Connecticut, Papa Soap LLC owns and operates the
website, https://nowataclean.com, which sells waterless soap and
shampoo products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com
PAYACTIV INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Stokes Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
LILLIE STOKES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PAYACTIV, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:25-cv-08541 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 7, 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.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant
disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff and Class Members by
intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and negligently failing to
implement reasonable measures to safeguard Private Information and
by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized
disclosure of that information. Defendant's woefully inadequate
data security measures made the Data Breach a foreseeable, and even
likely, consequence of its negligence.
The Plaintiff and Class Members would not have provided their
valuable Private Information had they known that the Defendant
would make their Private Information Internet-accessible, not
encrypt personal and sensitive data elements and not delete the
Private Information it no longer had reason to maintain, says the
suit.
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:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
280 S. Beverly Drive, Penthouse
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (858) 209-6941
Email: jnelson@milberg.com
PROSPER FUNDING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Sullivan Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICKY SULLIVAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROSPER FUNDING, LLC, and PROSPER
MARKETPLACE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-08232 (N.D. Cal.,
September 26, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for
their failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally
identifiable information of its customers, including, but not
limited to Social Security numbers.
The Plaintiff is a customer of Defendants' various financial
services. During their relationship, the Plaintiff provided
Defendants with at least the following: full name, date of birth,
contact information, and Social Security number.
On, or about, September 1, 2025, the Defendants discovered that an
unauthorized party gained access to its network and determined that
Plaintiff's personal information -- which was entrusted to
Defendants on the mutual understanding that Defendants would
protect it against unauthorized disclosure -- was accessed and
exfiltrated in a data breach.
The complaint alleges that the data breach was a direct result of
Defendant's failure to implement an information security program
designed to: (a) to ensure the security and confidentiality of
customer information; (b) to protect against anticipated threats or
hazards to the security or integrity of that information; and (c)
to protect against unauthorized access to that information that
could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit individually, and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, to address Defendant's
inadequate data protection practices and for failing to provide
timely and adequate notice of the data breach.
Prosper Funding, LLC engages in financial activities, such as
servicing loans, financial planning, and credit monitoring.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Bohren, Esq.
YANNI LAW APC
145 South Spring Street, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Telephone: (619) 433-2803
E-mail: yanni@bohrenlaw.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
PURELY ELIZABETH: Faces Martinez Suit Over ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER
PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. PURELY ELIZABETH LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-8356 (S.D.N.Y., October 9, 2025) is a
class action complaint against the Defendant bringing causes of
action for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate
its interactive website, https://purelyelizabeth.com/, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons. Defendant's denial of full and equal
access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and
services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired
and legally blind person, who cannot use a computer without the
assistance of screen-reading software. She is, however, a
proficient JAWS screen-reader user and uses it to access the
Internet. She has visited the Website on separate occasions using
the JAWS screen-reader. During her visits to the Website, the last
occurring on October 6, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Boxes of
Protein Cereal from Defendant and to view the information on the
Website, she encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a
shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full
and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public
and made available to the public; and that denied her the full
enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable
to purchase Boxes of Protein Cereal, as well as other products
available online and to ascertain information relating to
Defendant's: granolas, oatmeals, and cereals, as well as other
types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing
specials. She visited the Website in order to purchase Boxes of
Protein Cereal. She attempted to purchase Boxes of Protein Cereal
but was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the
item[s] to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate
attributes and other barriers on Defendant's Website, which
prevented her from doing so.
The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff has been discriminated
against by Defendant's conduct and violations of the statues and
regulations set forth herein by being treated unequally from
sighted persons due her disability and she has suffered and
continues to suffer injury as a result of Defendant's
discriminatory practices.
The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and
humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on
Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue to
contribute to her sense of isolation and segregation, asserts the
complaint.
Plaintiff, JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ is a resident of New
York, New York. She is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped
person and a member of a protected class of individuals under the
ADA.
Defendant, PURELY ELIZABETH LLC, operates the Purely Elizabeth
online retail store, as well as the Purely Elizabeth interactive
Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New
York and throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: 212.228.9795
Facsimile: 212.982.6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
QUALITY LANDSCAPE: Griggs Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES A. GRIGGS, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. QUALITY LANDSCAPE & LAWNCARE, LLC and STEVEN
CHEVALIER, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-01374 (W.D. La., September
15, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs and other relief
as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendants from March, 2024 to
the present as a working crew leader who performs manual labor as
part of Defendants' business operations. The Plaintiff and the
Collective Members regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
However, the Defendants have implemented a company-wide policy of
misclassifying Plaintiff and the Collective Members as independent
contractors and not employees. As a result, the Defendants did not
pay overtime at the rate of one- and one-half times Plaintiff's and
the Collective Members' regular rates of pay for all hours worked
over 40 in a workweek.
Headquartered in Bossier City, LA, Quality Landscape & Lawncare,
LLC provides lawncare and landscape services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
Scott E. Brady, Esq.
BOHRER BRADY, LLC
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 925-5297
Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
scott@bohrerbrady.com
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Szabo Sues Over Illegal Genetic Info Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN SZABO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, Defendant,
Case No. 3:25-cv-03294-CRL-DJQ (C.D. Ill., September 26, 2025) is a
class action complaint against Quest Diagnostics for its violations
of Plaintiff's privacy rights guaranteed under the Illinois Genetic
Information Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant chose to disregard
Illinois' genetic privacy laws by repeatedly asking job applicants
and/or employees to provide genetic information, in the form of
family medical history.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks on behalf of himself, and all
other similarly-situated persons, an order awarding statutory
damages and injunctive relief to Plaintiff and the members of the
proposed Class.
Plaintiff Szabo began working as a driver for Quest Diagnostics in
Springfield, Illinois from February 2022 to August 2022.
Quest Diagnostics Inc. is a healthcare company engaged in providing
diagnostic information services to patients and physicians.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel N. Minder, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: rminder@sirillp.com
R&R 1579 BAKERY: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Rosario Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIA ROSARIO, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class, Plaintiff v. R&R 1579 BAKERY CORP. d/b/a JACQUELINES
LOUNGE, A.B. BAKERY RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a JACQUELINE’S BAKERY
RESTAURANT, and REYNALDO BRAVO, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08027
(S.D.N.Y., September 26, 2025) is a class action against the
Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to the federal and state wage
laws, she and similarly situated individuals are entitled to
recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid minimum wages and overtime
premiums due to improper fixed salary compensation, (2) unpaid
wages and commissions due to an unlawful commissions structure, (3)
liquidated damages for unpaid wages and commissions, (4) statutory
penalties due to Wage Theft Protection Act violations, and (5)
attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff Rosario was hired by Defendants in May 2024 to work as a
server at Jacqueline's Lounge, located in Bronx, New York. In March
2025, Plaintiff's employment with Defendants was terminated.
R&R 1579 Bakery Corp. owns and operates a restaurant enterprise
under the trade name "Jacqueline's," which consists of a bakery and
a bar that are located directly next to each other in Bronx, New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
RAYMOND R. CONSTRUCTION: Zamora Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL ZAMORA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RAYMOND R. CONSTRUCTION CORP., RAYMOND
REMACHE, JESUS REMACHE, JULIO REMACHE, and JASMINE REMACHE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08008 (S.D.N.Y., September 26, 2025)
is an action against the Defendants to recover all compensation
Plaintiff is owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.
This is a collective and class action brought by the Plaintiff,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against
his former employers, Raymond R. Construction Corp. and its
principals, to recover unpaid overtime wages, unlawful deductions,
unpaid spread-of-hours pay, and statutory penalties for Defendants'
failure to provide mandatory wage notices and wage statements.
Throughout his employment, the Defendants willfully failed to pay
Plaintiff an overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 per
week, failed to provide him with legally required wage notices and
statements, and subjected him to a hostile work environment where
employees were told they had "no voice," says the suit.
Plaintiff Zamora was employed by Defendants as a carpenter and
framer from approximately June 1, 2024, to April 15, 2025, for a
total of one year and eight months.
Raymond R. Construction Corp. operates a construction business with
principal place of business in Kings County, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (718) 669-0714
E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com
RESOLVION LLC: Faces Jackson Suit Over Alleged Labor Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LISA JACKSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RESOLVION, LLC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-05255-MHC (N.D. Ga., September 15, 2025) arises out of
Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
common law.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a skip tracer from
approximately April 2016 to October 2023. From the start of her
employment until September 2020, Plaintiff worked in Defendant's
Atlanta office. From September 2020 to March 2023, Plaintiff worked
remotely. And from March 2023 to October 2023, the Plaintiff worked
a hybrid schedule, with two days remote and three days in the
office. Throughout the relevant period, the Defendant maintained a
corporate policy and practice of failing to compensate its skip
tracers for all pre- and post- shift off-the-clock work, violating
Plaintiff's rights under the FLSA.
Headquartered at Atlanta, GA, Resolvion, LLC provides collateral
recovery services for both commercial and consumer clients. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ethan C. Goemann, Esq.
Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: egoemann@sommerspc.com
jthompson@sommerspc.com
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Court OKs Amendment in "Albert"
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as Ashley Albert, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Global Tel*Link Corp., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
20-cv-01936-LKG, Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby of the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint or
to intervene.
This putative class action matter involves an alleged price-fixing
and kickback scheme to inflate the prices of single-call collect
calls placed by inmates from correctional facilities located within
the United States by, among others, Defendant Securus Technologies,
LLC, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Section
1-38, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO), 18 U.S.C. Section 1961-68. The Plaintiffs moved for leave
to file a second amended complaint or, in the alternative, to
intervene, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), 16(b)(4) and 24(a).
In the first amended complaint, the Plaintiffs assert the following
claims against the Defendants: (1) Conspiracy to fix prices in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act against all Defendants
(Count I); (2) Violation of RICO against Securus (Count II); (3)
Violation of RICO against Securus and Defendant 3Cinteractive Corp.
(Count III); (4) Violation of RICO against Defendants Platinum
Equity Capital Partners IV, L.P. and Platinum Equity LLC
(collectively, the Platinum Defendants), and Abry Partners, LLC and
Abry Partners VII, L.P. (collectively, the Abry Defendants) (Count
IV); (5) Violation of RICO against Defendant Global Tel*Link Corp.
(GTL) (Count V); (6) Violation of RICO against GTL and 3Ci (Count
VI); (7) Conspiracy to violate RICO against Securus and GTL (Count
VII); (8) Conspiracy to violate RICO against Securus, GTL and 3Ci
(Count VIII); and (9) Conspiracy to violate RICO against the Abry
Defendants, the Platinum Defendants, Securus and GTL (Count IX).
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants committed a per se
violation of the Sherman Act, by conspiring to: (1) eliminate
competition between themselves; (2) fix and charge inflated prices
for their single-call products; and (3) pay low site commission
fees for their single-call products. The Plaintiffs also allege
that the Defendants violated RICO by making fraudulent
misrepresentations and omissions to certain contracting
governments, and to consumers, for the purposes of charging
excessive rates and paying low site commission fees for their
single-call products. The Plaintiffs seek, among other things, to
recover monetary damages, attorney's fees and costs from the
Defendants.
Plaintiffs Ashley Albert, Ashley Baxter, Karina Jakeway and Melinda
Jabbie initially brought a putative class action matter against
Defendants GTL, Securus and 3Ci. On March 5, 2024, the Court
entered an Order dismissing the claims brought by Plaintiffs
Jakeway and Jabbie, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). On April
23, 2024, the Plaintiffs amended their complaint to include claims
brought by Plaintiffs Lupei Zhu and Rhonda Howard and to add claims
against the Abry and Platinum Defendants.
In October 2024, the Court granted consent motions for preliminary
approval of settlement, by and between the Plaintiffs and
Defendants 3Ci and GTL, which would resolve certain claims against
Defendants 3Ci and GTL on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a potential
class of similarly situated individuals.
On March 27, 2025, the Court granted Securus' motion to compel
arbitration, and stayed the claims brought against Securus by
Plaintiffs Albert and Baxter, pending the completion of the
parties' arbitration proceedings. On June 11, 2025, the Court
granted the Abry and Platinum Defendants' motions to dismiss and
dismissed these Defendants from the case. On August 5, 2025, the
Court entered an Order approving Plaintiff Howard's voluntary
dismissal of her claims against all Defendants with prejudice.
The remaining claims in this case are claims brought by Plaintiff
Zhu against Securus. The Plaintiffs seek leave to amend their
complaint to add proposed named Plaintiffs Patricia Hoaks and Yma
Sharron Plater and to remove Plaintiffs Albert and Baxter's claims
against Securus.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) provides that, when a party cannot amend a
pleading by right, a party may amend its pleading only with the
opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The decision
of whether to grant or deny leave to amend is within the discretion
of the Court, and the Court should freely grant leave to amend when
justice so requires. However, the Court should deny a party leave
to amend when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing
party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or
the amendment would be futile. An amendment is futile when the
proposed amended complaint fails to state a claim. The Court should
deny a motion for leave to amend if the proposed amendments could
not withstand a motion to dismiss.
The Plaintiffs have shown that leave to file a second amended
complaint is warranted in this case, pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2). The
Plaintiffs have shown that leave to further amend the complaint is
warranted under Rule 15(a)(2), for several reasons. First, the
Plaintiffs' proposed amendments will not unfairly prejudice
Securus. Whether an amendment is prejudicial will often be
determined by the nature of the amendment and its timing. The
proposed second amended complaint contains no substantive changes
to the nature and scope of the Plaintiffs' Sherman Act and RICO
claims against Securus. It is also undisputed that discovery is in
the early stages and that discovery has been stayed since August 9,
2024. Given this, Securus will not be prejudiced by the proposed
amendment.
Second, the Plaintiffs' claims against Securus are not futile. This
Court and the Fourth Circuit have held that the Plaintiffs' Sherman
Act and RICO claims against Securus are plausible and survive a
motion to dismiss. While the Court has dismissed the Abry and
Platinum Defendants from this case, Securus remains a Defendant in
the case. The Plaintiffs' claims against Securus are not futile.
Lastly, there is no evidence before the Court to suggest that the
Plaintiffs acted in bad faith, or unduly delayed, in seeking to
file the proposed second amended complaint. On March 27, 2025, the
Court entered an Order that granted Securus's motion to compel
arbitration as to Plaintiffs Ashley Albert and Ashley Baxter's
claims. Just two weeks later, on April 11, 2025, the Plaintiffs
filed a notice of intent to file the pending motion for leave to
file a second amended complaint or to intervene. The Plaintiffs
have acted diligently in seeking the proposed amendment.
Accordingly, the Court granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to file a second amended complaint or to intervene and
permitted the Plaintiffs to further amend the first amended
complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tFSNSM from PacerMonitor.com
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: $29.2MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 16
-------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
HANG LI, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS HOLDINGS,
INC., TOM GENTILE III, and MARK J.
SUCHINSKI
Defendants.
Case No. 1:23-cv-03722-PAE
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF
SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS
HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND
REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO: All persons and entities that purchased the publicly traded
Class A common stock of Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. between
April 8, 2020 and September 7, 2023, both dates inclusive (the
"Settlement Class")1:
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition
as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action,
Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement; (II)
Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the
"Notice").
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a
proposed settlement of the Action for $29,200,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the
Action.
A hearing will be held on January 16, 2026 at 10:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Paul A. Engelmayer at the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall
United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, Courtroom 1305, New
York, NY 10007, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement
should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether
the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants,
and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and in
the Notice should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv)
whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of expenses should be approved.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and Proof of
Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), can be downloaded from the
website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.SpiritAeroSecuritiesSettlement.com. You may also obtain copies
of the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator
at Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o
Epiq Systems, Inc., P.O. Box 2817, Portland, OR 97208-2817,
1-888-869-2173.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked or received no later than
January 30, 2026. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not
submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in
the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you
will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by
the Court in the Action.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received by, or postmarked, no later than
December 19, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement
Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by
the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in
the proceeds of the Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be delivered to the Claims
Administrator, Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received by, or postmarked no later than, December 26, 2025, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Defendants, or
their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this
notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o Epiq Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 2817
Portland, OR 97208-2817
Toll-free Telephone: 888-869-2173
Email: Info@SpiritAeroSecuritiesSettlement.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
Garth Spencer, Esq.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Email: settlements@glancylaw.com
- and/or -
HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010
Atlanta, GA 30346
Telephone: (770) 392-0090
Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
By Order of the Court
STATE FARM: Brewer Sues Over Deceptive Insurance Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG BREWER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00904 (M.D.N.C., Oct. 3, 2025)
is a class action by the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
North Carolina automobile insurance customers or former customers
of State Farm, whose vehicle total loss claims were paid by State
Farm using a CCC One Market Valuation Report ("CCC One Report").
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant is
engaged in a systematic and uniform practice of reducing the retail
cost of comparable vehicles used in the calculation of total loss
claim payments in violation of North Carolina's motor vehicle total
loss regulation, which resulted in State Farm avoiding paying the
full and correct amount for vehicle total loss claims.
When valuing vehicle total loss claims, it is improper for
insurance companies to undervalue and underpay the claims by
manipulating the data used to value the vehicles. Yet, using
software designed and licensed by CCC Information Services, Inc.,
manipulating data to underpay total loss claims is precisely what
the Defendant has been doing for years, says the suit.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company operates as an
insurance company. The Company offers vehicle, auto, accident,
homeowners, condo owners, renters, life and annuities, fire and
casualty, health, disability, flood, business, and boat insurance
products and services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron C. Hemmings, Esq.
Kelly A. Stevens, Esq.
HEMMINGS & STEVENS, PLLC
5540 McNeely Drive, Suite 202
Raleigh, NC 27612
Telephone: (919) 277-0161
Facsimile: (919) 277-0162
Email: ahemmings@hemmingsandstevens.com
kstevens@hemmingsandstevens.com
SWEDISH MATCH: Siegert Sues Over Mislabeled ZYN Nicotine Pouches
----------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTIN SIEGERT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SWEDISH MATCH NORTH AMERICA, LLC and PHILIP
MORRIS INTERNATIONAL INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01606 (D.
Conn., September 26, 2025) seeks to hold Defendants accountable for
their false and misleading advertising of the nature and safety of
ZYN nicotine pouches.
According to the complaint, the Defendants in this case market
their nicotine pouches as "tobacco-free" to consumers, misleading
consumers about the fact that the pouches actually contain nicotine
derived from tobacco. Additionally, ZYN nicotine pouches display
"3mg" and "6mg" nicotine labels, which mislead consumers into
thinking the addictive nature of these products is far lower than
it is.
The Defendants also market the pouches to young people, misleading
them about the illegality, in all fifty states, of selling these
nicotine pouches to people younger than 21 years of age, says the
suit.
Plaintiff Siegert brings this action on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated who purchased ZYN nicotine pouches during
the Class period.
Swedish Match North America, LLC develops, manufactures, and sells
tobacco products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert A. Izard, Esq.
Craig A. Raabe, Esq.
Christopher M. Barrett, Esq.
IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
29 South Main Street, Suite 305
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 493-6292
E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
craabe@ikrlaw.com
cbarrett@ikrlaw.com
- and -
Kim E. Richman, Esq.
RICHMAN LAW & POLICY
1 Bridge Street, Suite 83
Irvington, NY 10533
Telephone: (914) 693-2018
E-mail: krichman@richmanlawpolicy.com
TRANSUNION LLC: Illegally Collects Personal Info, Weitz Says
------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN WEITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSUNION, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-11706 (N.D. Ill., September 26, 2025) is a class action
brought to enforce Plaintiff's constitutional rights to privacy and
to seek damages under California law for the harm caused by the
collection and sale of his confidential data and personal
information.
According to the complaint, TransUnion collects various pieces of
user-identifying information to match users to non-anonymous
profiles it maintains. Those profiles, which are specific to
individual users, contain highly detailed information about the
user, including personal identifiers, demographic attributes,
financial attributes, behavioral and psychographic data, device and
digital activity data, location and movement data, marketing
attributes, and more.
This is accomplished using Neustar's Aggregate Knowledge (AGKN)
Trackers, a combination of web pixels and SDKs. A web pixel is a
piece of code loaded into a website which tracks user interactions
with that website and sends them to third parties. An SDK is the
equivalent of a web pixel for mobile applications: the SDK is
loaded onto an app and similarly tracks user interactions with the
app, says the suit.
As a result of this process, Class Members, including Plaintiff,
suffered harms associated with the collection and dissemination of
their information by data brokers and wide dissemination of their
personal information through the real-time bidding process. All of
this results in Class Members' loss of the right to control their
personal information and right to remain anonymous in their
personal proceedings, the suit contends.
Transunion LLC is an international credit and data reporting
company with information on one billion customers in over 30
countries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
William J. Edelman, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: wedelman@milberg.com
- and -
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
50 Main St., Ste. 475
White Plains, NY 10606
Telephone: (914) 874-0710
Facsimile: (914) 206-3656
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
- and -
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
UNION HOME: Faces Washington Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE WASHINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNION HOME MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02049-CAB (N.D. Ohio, September 26,
2025) is a class action arising out of UHM's failure to properly
secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy
Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable
information that it had acquired and stored for its business
purposes.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's data security failure
allowed a targeted cyberattack in June 2025 to compromise
Defendant's network that contained personally identifiable
information including at least the names, loan numbers, Social
Security numbers, driver's license or government-issued ID card
numbers, and dates of birth of Plaintiff and other similarly
situated individuals.
As a result of UHM's data breach, the Plaintiff and thousands of
Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of
financial losses resulting from identity theft, out-of pocket
expenses, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, and the value
of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects
of the data breach.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for
negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory relief, seeking redress for UHM's unlawful conduct.
Plaintiff Washington is a former applicant for loan services
through Defendant.
Union Home Mortgage Corporation is a home loan servicer for
homebuyers since 1970.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A.
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
MASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
dperry@masonllp.com
UNITED AIRLINES: Lawrey Seeks Proper Wages for Flight Attendants
----------------------------------------------------------------
AVA LAWREY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-15624 (D.N.J., September 15, 2025) seeks redress for
Defendant's systematic failure to compensate Plaintiff and flight
attendants for all hours worked.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant primarily operating out of
Newark Liberty International Airport in Newark, New Jersey from in
or around July 2023 through in or around July 2025. Allegedly, the
Defendant maintains a uniform corporate policy and practice of
paying flight attendants on an hourly basis only for work performed
during actual flight time, which is defined as the time from the
closing of the aircraft door at the beginning of a flight until the
door is opened at the end of a flight.
As a result, the Defendant fails to pay flight attendants any sums
for a multitude of principal work activities that are routinely
performed outside of actual flight time. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts
claims for violations of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.
Headquartered in Chicago, IL, United Airlines, Inc. is a major
airline in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chester R. Ostrowski, Esq.
Lee S. Shalov, Esq.
Brett R. Gallaway Esq.
Jason S. Giaimo, Esq.
McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP
1 Elm Street, Suite 2
Westfield, NJ 07090
Telephone: (908) 894-6001
E-mail: costrowski@mclaughlinstern.com
UNITED STATES: Elbert et al. Sue Over Unpaid Crop Indemnities
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICH ELBERT, JEFF A. KOSEK, REICHMANN LAND & CATTLE LLP, LUDOWESE
A.E. INC., and MICHAEL STAMER, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. BROOKE ROLLINS,
in her capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of
Agriculture, PATRICIA SWANSON, Administrator U.S. Department of
Agriculture Risk Management Agency and Director of the Federal Crop
Insurance Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-03668 (D.
Minn., September 15, 2025) seeks judicial review of final agency
action and other relief related to crop insurance known as the 2015
Dry Bean Revenue Endorsement (DBRE).
The purpose of DBRE crop insurance was to protect dry bean farmers
against a market price decline. Although dry bean market prices
declined greatly in 2015, no indemnity was paid to Plaintiffs
because adverse determinations were made by Defendants Federal Crop
Insurance Corporation and the Risk Management Agency related to the
establishment of a "harvest price" under the DBRE for dark red
kidney beans in Minnesota.
The Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the May 18, 2023
determination issued by the FCIC was arbitrary, capricious, an
abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law; was contrary
to statutes and other law; was without observance of procedure
required by law; and was unwarranted by the facts. In addition,
Plaintiffs seek for declaratory and injunctive relief from
administrative determinations issued by the FCIC and the RMA.
The Plaintiffs further allege that the FCIC affirmation of the
approval and interpretation of the DBRE subverted the intent and
understanding of the parties to the contract, resulting in a
complete failure of consideration by precluding even the
possibility of recovery, such that it would be inequitable for the
DBRE premium not to be reimbursed to Plaintiffs.
The FCIC is a government corporation that promotes the economic
stability of agriculture through a sound system of crop insurance.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John D. Tallman, Esq.
JOHN D. TALLMAN, PLC
4020 East Beltline Ave., NE, Suite 101
Grand Rapids, MI 49525
Telephone: (616) 361-8850
E-mail: jtallmanlaw@gmail.com
VERADIGM INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Schnauffer Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR SCHNAUFFER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERADIGM, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-12270 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 7, 2025) is a class action
arises out of Veradigm's failures to properly secure, safeguard,
encrypt, and timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class
members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had
acquired and stored for its business purposes.
As a result of the Defendant's Data Breach, the Plaintiff and
thousands of Class members suffered ascertainable losses in the
form of financial losses resulting from identity theft,
out-of-pocket expenses, the loss of the benefit of their bargain,
and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or
mitigate the effects of the attack.
The Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and
protocols necessary to protect Plaintiff and Class members' Private
Information.
Veradigm Inc. operates as an integrated data systems and services
company that combines data-driven clinical insights with actionable
tools to help healthcare stakeholders. The Company focuses on
healthcare providers providing point-of-care clinical software,
practice management solutions, and patient outreach platforms.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com
nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
VISCATA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Viscata, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-03664
(D. Minn., September 15, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights
Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant discriminated her by
failing to provide its online website content and services in a
manner that is compatible with screen reader technology.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks relief including an injunction
requiring Defendant to make its website accessible to Plaintiff and
the putative class; and requiring Defendant to adopt sufficient
policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that Defendant's
website remains accessible in the future. The Plaintiffs also seek
an award of statutory attorney's fees and costs, damages, a damages
multiplier, a civil penalty, and such other relief as the Court
deems just, equitable, and appropriate.
Headquartered in Carlsbad, CA, Viscata owns and operates the
website, www.viscata.com, which offers shoes and accessories for
sale. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
WEX INC: Patterson Sues Over Unfair Business Practices
------------------------------------------------------
JAMES PATTERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WEX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-08557
(N.D. Cal., Oct. 7, 2025) is an action seeking to stop the
Defendant from its lawful, deceptive, fraudulent and unfair
business practices.
According to the complaint, throughout the entirety of the COBRA
sign up process, the Defendant fails to reasonably inform consumers
that the Online Payment Processing Fee" ("OPP Fee") will be
charged. Reasonable consumers like Plaintiff and Class Members
proceed to checkout without ever becoming aware of the OPP Fee
assessed by Defendant.
At checkout, consumers making one-time monthly premium payments
online are unable to avoid this OPP Fee, regardless of payment
method, and are not reasonably informed of alternative payment
methods to avoid the Opp Fee.
While Plaintiff and Class Members were harmed at the time of
payment of the OPP Fee, Defendant was unjustly enriched by its
misrepresentations and omissions. As a result of Defendant's
unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices, Plaintiff and
Class Members suffered injury, says the suit.
WEX Inc. provides payment processing and information management
services to the United States commercial and government vehicle
fleet industry. The Company markets services directly to businesses
and government agencies with vehicle fleets, automotive
manufacturers, and fuel retailers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 788-8300
Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
- and -
Neil J. Swartzberg, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1205
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 433-9000
Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Hit with $966MM Verdict Over Cancer Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Antoine Abou-Diwan, writing for dailyjournal.com, reports that a
Los Angeles jury found Johnson & Johnson acted with malice in the
death of 88-year-old Mae Moore, awarding her family nearly $1
billion in damages for what plaintiff said was asbestos
contamination in the Company's talc-based Bay powder.
The family of Mae Moore, a California resident who died at age 88
in 2021, sued the company, claiming J&J's talc baby powder products
contained asbestos fibers that caused her rare cancer. The jury
ordered J&J to pay $16 million in compensatory damages and $950
million in punitive damages, according to court filings.
The verdict could be reduced on appeal as the U.S. Supreme Court
has found that punitive damages should generally be no more than
nine times compensatory damages.
Erik Haas, Johnson & Johnson's worldwide vice president of
litigation, said in a statement that the company plans to
immediately appeal, calling the verdict "egregious and
unconstitutional."
"The plaintiff lawyers in this Moore case based their arguments on
‘junk science’ that never should have been presented to the
jury," Haas said.
The company has said its products are safe, do not contain
asbestos, and do not cause cancer. J&J stopped selling talc-based
baby powder in the U.S. in 2020, switching to a cornstarch product.
Mesothelioma has been linked to asbestos exposure.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NC Court Reopens 13 Cases Against Continental Tire
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Carolina Journal reports that the North Carolina Court of
Appeals will allow 13 lawsuits to proceed against the owner of
former tire manufacturing facility in Charlotte. The plaintiffs
were among more than 150 people who initially claimed damages based
on alleged exposure to asbestos.
The split 2-1 ruling reversed a decision from the North Carolina
Industrial Commission, which had dismissed all of the cases. The
commission had ruled that the lawsuits were barred by the outcomes
of previous "bellwether" cases. The state Appeals Court upheld
rulings against plaintiffs in those lawsuits in the 2019 case
Hinson v. Continental Tire.
Most of the cases decided relied on reasoning set forward in
Funderburk v. Continental Tire. That case focused on a worker
diagnosed with lung cancer in 2012 who died in 2013. His widow,
Debra Gail Funderburk, has been pursuing the legal action for more
than a decade.
"Defendant and its predecessor operated a tire manufacturing
factory in Charlotte from the 1960s until 2006," Appeals Court
Judge Toby Hampson wrote for the court majority. "Beginning in
2008, more than 150 former employees brought workers' compensation
claims alleging they each developed one or more compensable
asbestos-related diseases caused by prolonged exposure to asbestos
in the factory. Each claimant was represented by the same counsel,
and the cases were consolidated for hearing before the Industrial
Commission."
In 2010 the parties agreed to try six representative, or
bellwether, cases first. Once the Industrial Commission ruled
against the plaintiffs in those cases, and the Appeals Court
affirmed the decision, the company moved to dismiss claims from 139
remaining plaintiffs. Some 125 plaintiffs dropped their claims
voluntarily, but 14 cases remained. Thirteen of those cases reached
Hampson and his colleagues.
The Industrial Commission ruled against all plaintiffs in November
2023.
"Our review of the record and transcript indicate neither the
parties nor the Industrial Commission when consolidating these
cases understood the Bellwether Cases to bind the Consolidated
Plaintiffs such that dismissal of their cases would be appropriate
if the claims of the Bellwether Plaintiffs were denied,:" Hampson
wrote.
"Defendant has not identified any statement in the Record,
including the transcripts and the Commission's orders during the
pendency and resolution of the Bellwether Cases, that indicates the
parties intended to be bound or that the Commission understood its
decision to be binding," he added. "The status of certain of the
Consolidated Cases as bellwether cases did not lend them the
special preclusive effect Defendant asserts."
Hampson rejected the argument that the Appeals Court’s 2019
ruling blocked the current lawsuits from moving forward.
"We acknowledge this Court's decision in Hinson purported to treat
all Consolidated Plaintiffs as appellants due to the Opinion and
Award addressing 'common issues,'" he wrote. "However, appeal from
that decision of the Industrial Commission was only available to
the five Bellwether Plaintiffs, and only those five appealed to
this Court. We were without jurisdiction to decide issues
applicable to other parties, including Plaintiff."
The Funderburk case "is remanded to the Industrial Commission for
further proceedings in which the Commission shall allow the parties
to produce additional evidence as to their claims and defenses,"
Hampson wrote. The other 12 plaintiffs face similar results.
Judge April Wood joined Hampson's opinion. Chief Judge Chris Dillon
dissented.
"The Full Commission determined that, based on the 'law of the
case' doctrine, Plaintiff is barred by our decision in Hinson to
pursue any claim based on alleged exposure to asbestos at the
factory," Dillon wrote. "The majority holds that Plaintiff is not
barred by Hinson to pursue her claims."
"I agree, however, with the Commission based on the reasoning below
that our holding in Hinson bars Plaintiff's claims for any
asbestos-related diseases," Dillon added. "Therefore, my vote is to
affirm the Commission's order dismissing Plaintiff's claims."
The Appeals Court's 2019 ruling barred any future asbestos-related
claims from the Continental Tire plaintiffs, Dillon explained.
"The sentence in the main text should rightly be read as holding
that asbestos levels at Defendant's factory were not sufficient to
cause or contribute to any asbestos-related disease alleged by any
of the consolidated plaintiffs, including Plaintiff," he wrote. "In
sum, I conclude Hinson affirmed a determination that the
consolidated Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to show
employment at the factory exposed anyone to asbestos sufficient to
cause any asbestos-related disease."
"It may be that the Commission orders reviewed by the Hinson panel
could be interpreted more narrowly, as merely deciding that the
consolidated plaintiffs failed to prove asbestos at Defendant's
factory could have caused certain specific diseases alleged by the
bellwether plaintiffs, including asbestosis," Dillon added.
"However, none of the consolidated plaintiffs, including Plaintiff,
appealed our decision in Hinson or sought our Court to clarify or
modify that decision. Accordingly, our interpretation of the
Commission's bellwether orders in Hinson became the law of the case
and, therefore, binding on all the consolidated plaintiffs."
*********
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 ***