251020.mbx

251020.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, October 20, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 209 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Anderson Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Atherton Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois 3M COMPANY: Frickey Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Green Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Hubbard Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ABM INDUSTRY: Linares Bid for Class Certification Tossed ADVANCE FUNDS NETWORK: Cardenas Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York AEHR TEST SYSTEMS: Lucid Alternative Drops Securities Suit AMDOCS INC: Faces Wolfe Suit Over Mismanagement of 401(k) Plan AMENIFY CORPORATION: Cardero Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida AMERICAN RECYCLING: Abarca Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ANTONIO SOFO: Obando Balks at Failure to Secure Personal Info ARDENT HEALTH: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Hill" AW DISTRIBUTING: Fails to Warn of Cleaning Duster Danger, Suit Says BLUEOVAL SK: Fails to Provide Proper OT Wages, O'Brien Says BOYD GAMING: Neely Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info CRESCENT HOTELS: Ritchie Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices DISCORD INC: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Uceta Suit Claims FAY NUTRITION: Intercepts Electronic Communications, Sasaki Says GEI CONSULTANTS: Paramoure Suit Removed to E.D. California GENERAL PARTS: Brown Sues Over Inaccessible Property GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS: $275MM Class Settlement Wins Approval GERBER PRODUCTS: Class Settlement in Hasemann Wins Final Nod GRISWOLD INDUSTRIES: Cotero Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GULF COAST COLLECTION: Ynoa Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida HANS INVESTMENTS: Hirning Sues Over Physical Barriers HAVCO WOOD PRODUCTS: Jones Files Suit in E.D. Missouri HEALTHCARE INC: Irvin Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida HERTZ CORP: Court OK's Stipulation on Class Cert Hearing Sched HESS CORP: Wagner Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Exhibits HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS: McCool Files Suit in N.D. Georgia HILLSHIRE BRANDS: Wilim Files Suit in N.D. Illinois HOBBY LOBBY STORES: Aguilar Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage HOME DEPOT: Hrynacz Suit Removed to W.D. Washington HOME SERVICE NETWORK: Gomez Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages HWAT INC: Prerost Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois INDEBTED USA INC: Gonzalez Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas INGMELEC USA: Marino Sues Over Inaccessible Property INNOVATE FOOD GROUP: Victor Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination IOWA HEALTH SYSTEM: Morris Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages IRATEL PROPERTIES: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ITALO JEWELRY: Porto Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ITS LOGISTICS: Class Settlement in Guthrie Suit Gets Initial Nod JAMES A. TACCI: Complete Medical Sues Over Denied Statutory Right JDK & COMPANY: Winfield-Newton Suit Removed to N.D. California JETLINE CAPITAL: Redick Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California JOFIN O'BANNON: Trial in King Class Suit Continued KABAFUSION HOLDINGS: Ahmad Sues Over Unpaid Compensations KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Wins Summary Judgment v. Venkataraman KEYSTONE PREMIER: Class Discovery in Ortiz Suit Due Jan. 30, 2026 KIRBY BEAUTY LLC: Murray Files Suit in C.D. California KRC MATERIALS: Brewer Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation L3 TECHNOLOGIES: Gallardo Suit Removed to S.D. California LA SANDWICHERIE: Castro Sues Over Discriminative Website LACOSTE USA INC: Hashimi Suit Removed to S.D. California LANGDON & COMPANY: Windsor Suit Removed to E.D. North Carolina LAYTON MART SHOPPING: Malsack Sues Over Physical Barriers LAYTON MART SHOPPING: Segovia Sues Over Physical Barriers LBU LIGHTING LLC: Campbell Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination LGCY POWER: Tovar Suit Removed to S.D. California LONG FENCE AND HOME: Hennessy Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida LULULEMON USA INC: Brown Suit Removed to C.D. California MANPOWER US: Tollar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MANZANA LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing Reset to May 1, 2026 MARCO'S FRANCHISING: Castro Sues Over Discriminative Website MARIN CITY HEALTH: Iglesias Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Mancinelli Suit Removed to N.D. California MAZE DIGITAL: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio MEDSTAR HEALTH INC: Sanders Files Suit in D. Maryland MEMORIALCARE MEDICAL: Valencia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MIKE TOPANGA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Beltran Due Oct. 31 MOTILITY SOFTWARE: Lockwood Files Suit in M.D. Florida MOTILITY SOFTWARE: Markovits Stock Named Class Counsel in Lockwood MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Haff Poultry Sues Over Anticompetitive Conduct MW SERVICES LTD: Boucher Suit Removed to E.D. California NALS NEST: Faces Owens Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. NAPCO SECURITY: Zornberg Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification NEW ORLEANS, LA: Anderson Suit Remanded to Louisiana State Court NVK LEARNING: Williams Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Teachers ONTRAC LOGISTICS: Parker Suit Transferred to N.D. California OP2 LABS LLC: Hardy-Gerena Suit Removed to D. Columbia OUTCOMES ONE INC: Hoot Sues Over Recent Cyberattack OUTCOMES ONE INC: Leach Files Suit in M.D. Florida OXFORD HEALTH: Court Endorses Partial OK of Class Cert Bid PANO DION CORP: Shalto Sues Over Discrimination on Premises PAPA JOHN'S USA: Hutton Suit Removed to W.D. Washington PARAMOUNT ASSETS: Vallelunga Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey PENNEY OPCO LLC: Atkinson Suit Removed to W.D. Washington PEOPLE CONCERN: Lord Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PLENUMS PLUS: Castro Suit Removed to S.D. California POLLO CAMPERO HOLDING: Morales Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Linton Files FDCPA Suit in D. Maryland PREGIS LLC: Hutsell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PRESTIGE MAINTENANCE: Court Consolidates Data Breach Suits PRIMATE PRODUCTS: Cruz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages PROCTER & GAMBLE: Dawkins Sues Over Unlawful Trackers PRODRIVERS WEST: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Jan. 9, 2026 PYRAMID THEODORE: Voivod Suit Removed to W.D. Washington RALPH LAUREN: Court Narrows Claims in Molayem Suit RATES VIP LLC: Muhammad Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL: Diflumeri Suit Removed to M.D. Florida REMINGTON LODGING: Rivera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. REPUBLIC SERVICES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Budget Suit Due Dec. 1 REVIVE & CO: O'Donnell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website REYES COCA-COLA BOTTLING: Alvarez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Feb. 15, 2026 RHEEM MANUFACTURING: Court Grants Word Limit Extension in "West" ROSENDIN ELECTRIC: Burns Suit Removed to E.D. California ROUSH FENWAY: Cowley Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information RYAN RD COMMONS: Malsack Sues Over Physical Barriers S & H PROPERTY: McCauley Sues Over Unlawful Physical Barriers SALESFORCE INC: Lamarre Sues Over Failure to Secure PII SALESFORCE INC: Moran Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII SAUCONY INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SECURITAS CRITICAL: Pryor Suit Removed to E.D. California SECURITY ENFORCEMENT: Quintanar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Riley Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida SHAKERAG FARMS: Does File Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. SHEHEEN HANCOCK & GODWIN: Rogers Files Suit in D. South Carolina SHEHEEN HANCOCK: Hamilton Sues Over Data Breach SHEPHERDS LANE: Farias Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation SHERATON OPERATING: Gerl Suit Removed to C.D. California SHIFTSTER LLC: Ealey Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI SHINHAN BANK AMERICA: Kim-Yoo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SIDEPRIZE LLC: Lee Suit Removed to N.D. California SKYWEST AIRLINES: Petelo Suit Removed to C.D. California SO CAL RAMP: Corona Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages SOM JAI NUK: Faces Rocete Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CROSSROADS: Suit Filed in Cal. Super. Ct. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SPECIALTY: Lara Suit Removed to C.D. California SOUTHWEST CONCRETE: Aceves Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STEPS CLOTHING: Castro Sues Over Discriminative Website STERLING STEEL: Mager Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation STRADA SERVICES: Gamez Suit Removed to M.D. Florida STURGIS HOSPITAL: Marchand Balks at Unprotected Personal Info SUSHI ON THE ROAD: Herrera Sues Over Disability Discrimination SWEET BAY PROPERTIES: Powell Files Suit in Fla. Dist. Ct. TAZO TEA COMPANY: Casucci Sues Over Deceptive Business Practice TEA DATING ADVICE: Karam Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana TEA DATING ADVICE: Perry Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois TEA DATING ADVICE: Valdez Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois TEKNI-PLEX INC: Beck Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data TEKNI-PLEX INC: Fails to Properly Secure Personal Info, Keene Says TENNESSEE GAS: Bid to Oppose Class Cert. Extended TERRASOUL SUPERFOODS: Argueta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TG ADMINISTRATION: McMullen Suit Removed to N.D. California THRILLZZ INC: Rahmani Files Suit in S.D. California TIM WALZ: McGuire Files Suit in D. Minnesota TIMOTHY WISEMAN: Ford Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Laws Violation TRA INDUSTRIES INC: Ledoux Files Suit in E.D. Washington TRANS UNION: Crockran Files Suit in N.D. Illinois TRANS UNION: Kaplan Bid to Seal Motion to Certify Class Tossed TRANSUNION LLC: Bingham Sues Over Failure to Maintain Security TRANSUNION LLC: Johnson Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info TRANSUNION: LLC Sued Over Failure to Implement Data Security TRUSTLINE CARRIERS: Garcia Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California TWO RIVERS DEMOLITION: Trevino Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. UNION HOME MORTGAGE: Dimarco Sues Over Recent Cyberattack UNITED FOOD: Heath Files Suit in D. Colorado UNITED PARCEL SERVICE: Palaguachi Suit Removed to E.D. New York UNITED PARKS & RESORTS: Beeman Files Suit in M.D. Florida UNITED STATES: Jones Suit Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class UPSTART HOLDINGS: Crain Allowed to File FAC US FOODS INC: Gaudio Suit Removed to E.D. California US MED DIRECT: Leedy Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida UVN LLC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York VERADIGM INC: Braddock Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information VICTOR COMMUNITY: Alder Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VICTORIA SECRET: Chautin Sues Over Unlawful Marketing Text Message VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Castro Sues Over Discriminative Website VIVID SEATS: Rubinstein Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration VSI INC: Gutierrez Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California WASHINGTON AVE. ASSOCIATES: Lopez Sues Over Unlawful Barriers WE PACK IT ALL: Flores Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WESTCHESTER MEDICAL: Mincone Sues for Invasion of Privacy WESTERN MONTANA CLINIC: Murphy Suit Removed to D. Montana WESTHAB INC: Lowther Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination WHALECO INC: Coles Suit Transferred to E.D. New York WHITTIER COLLEGE: Moreno Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WILLIAMSON MEDICAL: Ratcliff Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation YARDBIRD GROUP: Espinoza Sues Over Discriminative Website YEPLEADS INC: Quintana Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls ZUFFA LLC: Guedes Files Motion to Quash Subpoena in Johnson Suit ********* 3M COMPANY: Anderson Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Timothy Anderson, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-23801 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Oct. 3, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12794-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason Patrick Frank, esq. DOWNS LAW GROUP 3250 Mary Street, Suite 307 Miami, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 786-4918 Email: jfrank@downslawgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Atherton Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Aaron Atherton, et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2025LA001001 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Oct. 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01854. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs. In relevant part, Plaintiffs allege that 3M and certain other Defendants sold AFFF containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"). Moreover, each Plaintiff expressly alleges that he "regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter" and allegedly suffered injury "as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel I. Rottenberg, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 353 North Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 222-9350 Email: DRottenberg@jenner.com 3M COMPANY: Frickey Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Douglas Frickey, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01468 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Sept. 30, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12744-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: Green Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Michael W. Green, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01417 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Sept. 26, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12709-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: Hubbard Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Gregory Lee Hubbard, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01418 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Sept. 26, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12707-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com ABM INDUSTRY: Linares Bid for Class Certification Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EFREN LINARES, v. ABM INDUSTRY GROUPS, LLC; and FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF MODESTO, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00816-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Nunley entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The parties shall file a joint status report within 14 days of this Order indicating how this action should proceed now that class certification has been denied. ABM has demonstrated nearly all of the proposed class members must arbitrate any claims against ABM. Accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot, under these circumstances, satisfy his burden of establishing numerosity. As a result, the Court denies the Plaintiff's motion for class certification as to ABM. The Plaintiff brought this putative class action against Defendants for alleged wage and hour violations. In the instant motion, the Plaintiff seeks to certify the following classes: 1. Unpaid Overtime Class: "All non-exempt employees of the Defendants within California at any time from March 2, 2018 to the date of trial who have worked overtime and/or double time hours during weeks in which they were compensated with shift differentials, for whom the Defendants' payroll records show premium wages paid at a rate that did not factor in shift differential compensation"; 2. Inaccurate Wage Statement Class: "All non-exempt employees of Defendants within California at any time from March 2, 2018 to the date of trial who have worked overtime and/or double-time hours during weeks in which they were compensated with shift differentials, for whom the Defendants' payroll records show premium wages paid at a rate that did not factor in shift differential compensation"; 3. Waiting Time Penalties Class: "All non-exempt employees of Defendants within California at any time March 2, 2018 to the date of trial who have worked overtime and/or double-time hours during weeks in which they were compensated with shift differentials, for whom the Defendants' payroll records show premium wages paid at a rate that did not factor in shift differential compensation. The Plaintiff was hired on May 20, 2014 and placed on assignment in Modesto, California as a bake person for Flowers Baking. The Plaintiff was not a member of a union during his employment. ABM is a provider of facility and staffing services for a wide variety of industries and customers, including Flowers Baking. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gF4YiB at no extra charge.[CC] ADVANCE FUNDS NETWORK: Cardenas Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advance Funds Network LLC. The case is styled as Erica Cardenas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Advance Funds Network LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05442 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 29, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Advance Funds Network -- https://advancefundsnetwork.com/ -- is one of the easiest ways to obtain financing for your existing business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN, PLLC 66 West Flagler Street, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com AEHR TEST SYSTEMS: Lucid Alternative Drops Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Aehr Test Systems disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended August 29, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 8, 2025, that on December 3, 2024, a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned "Lucid Alternative Fund, LP v. Aehr Test Systems, Inc." was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the company. On May 16, 2025, the court-appointed lead plaintiff elected to dismiss the case voluntarily, with all parties to bear their own fees and costs. The court subsequently closed the case following the voluntary dismissal of the shareholder class action. The lawsuit alleges, in part, that the company and certain of its executives made materially false and misleading statements regarding its earnings guidance and other financial projections for 2024. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and purports to represent purchasers of its securities between January 9, 2024 and March 24, 2024. On February 3, 2025, Lucid and individual investor Yue Guo each filed motions requesting appointment as lead plaintiff. On March 19, 2025, the court appointed Yue Guo, who was represented by Rosen Law, as lead plaintiff in the shareholder class action. On April 4, 2025, the court ordered lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint or designate the existing complaint as operative by May 16, 2025; defendants to file their anticipated motion to dismiss by June 6, 2025; lead plaintiff to respond to the motion by June 27, 2025; and defendants to reply by July 11, 2025. The court scheduled a hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss on August 8, 2025. Aehr Test Systems develops and manufactures test and burn-in equipment used in the semiconductor industry. AMDOCS INC: Faces Wolfe Suit Over Mismanagement of 401(k) Plan -------------------------------------------------------------- VERONICA WOLFE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMDOCS, INC., THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF AMDOCS, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-01505 (E.D. Mo., October 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty of prudence and failure to adequately monitor other fiduciaries pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants for breaching the duties they owed to the Amdocs, Inc. 401(k) Plan, to the Plaintiff, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia: (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio, initially and on an ongoing basis, with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of performance; and (2) engaging in prohibited transactions. The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties of prudence, says the suit. Amdocs, Inc is a software provider, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kelly M. Spann, Esq. FORTMANSPANN, LLC 250 St. Catherine Street Florissant, MO 63031 Telephone: (314) 522-2312 Facsimile: (314) 524-1519 Email: kms@fortmanlaw.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 232-3080 Email: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com AMENIFY CORPORATION: Cardero Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amenify Corporation. The case is styled as Felix Cardero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amenify Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-24473-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 29, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Amenify Corporation -- https://www.amenify.com/ -- operates as a real estate technology company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com AMERICAN RECYCLING: Abarca Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Recycling International, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Claudio Abarca, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Recycling International, Inc., Pick-Your-Part Auto Wrecking, Case No. 25STCV29501 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 7, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not Fraud/ Breach of Contract)." American Recycling is a full service recycling company handling paper, plastic, and metal products, along with providing financially sound, custom recycling programs to our customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Turner, Esq. TURNER DHILLON LLP 707 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 3250 Los Angeles, CA 90017-3599 Phone: 213-373-5406 Fax: 213-373-5599 Email: wturner@turnerdhillon.com ANTONIO SOFO: Obando Balks at Failure to Secure Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL OBANDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANTONIO SOFO & SON IMPORTING CO., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02062-JZ (N.D. Ohio, September 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information including, but not limited to, Plaintiff's and Class Members' name and Social Security Number. According to the complaint, the Defendant maintained the private information in a reckless manner. In particular, the private information was maintained on Defendant's computer network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the data breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was a known risk to Defendant. Because of the data breach, the 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, asserts the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) breach of implied contract, and (iii) unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff provided Defendant with his sensitive personal identifiable information as a condition of receiving employment with the Defendant. Antonio Sofo & Son Importing Co. 1s a food distributor serving a range of business with distribution centers in Georgia and Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (800) 615-4946 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 - and - Christopher E. Torres, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 ARDENT HEALTH: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Hill" ------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Vanessa Hill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ardent Health Services, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01045 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's fraud-based claims, breach of contract claim, and unjust enrichment claim. This litigation is being waged on two fronts. The first is Vanessa Hill's claims, on behalf of herself and her co-workers, that Ardent Health Services and BSA Health System Management failed to pay their employees for all the hours they worked. The failure to pay occurred when the Defendant's timekeeping and payroll system, Kronos, experienced a ransomware attack on December 11, 2021. During an extended system outage, the Defendant failed to accurately track and pay their employees for the hours they worked. To recover these unpaid wages, Ms. Hill sued the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and under two state law theories - breach of contract and unjust enrichment. According to the Court "The second front stems from the Defendant's conduct during this litigation. Distilled to its essence, Ms. Hill claims that Ardent fraudulently entered into a Tolling Agreement with her and then delayed the case by over a year to run out the statute of limitations for its corporate subsidiary, BSA. Specifically, Ms. Hill claims that Ardent knew that: (1) BSA was technically the employer of many of the affected employees, and (2) Ms. Hill believed Ardent was the employer for the purposes of her claims and the claims of other opt-in plaintiffs. According to her, Ardent preyed on Ms. Hill's misconception by entering into the Tolling Agreement with her even though it knew it would ultimately argue it was not her employer. Based on this alleged misconduct, Ms. Hill is suing Ardent for promissory fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. It appears Ms. Hill raises these fraud-based claims for the sole purpose of combating any statute of limitation defense the Defendant may assert regarding her wage claims." The Defendant moved to dismiss all the Plaintiff's claims except her FLSA claim. Regarding the Plaintiff's promissory fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation claims, the Defendant argued that: (1) Ms. Hill has not identified any fraudulent statement with particularity; (2) she has not alleged how her reliance on Ardent's omissions was reasonable; and (3) she has not suffered any injury because her individual FLSA claims were preserved when she filed this lawsuit. As to the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim, the Defendant asserted that: (1) Ms. Hill failed to meet the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard by providing only bare-bones legal assertions completely devoid of supporting facts; and (2) she lacks standing to assert violations of Tennessee common law when she has not established residency or employment in Tennessee. Regarding the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim, the Defendant repeated their standing argument and further argued that Ms. Hill cannot sustain an unjust enrichment claim while simultaneously arguing she and her fellow workers had written or oral contracts. The Second Amended Complaint extensively outlines the factual circumstances surrounding her Tolling Agreement with Ardent. Curiously, though, the Second Amended Complaint never identifies a specific statement made by Ardent that is allegedly untrue. Ordinarily, this would warrant dismissal of Ms. Hill's fraud-based claims, as Ardent suggests in its motion. However, the Second Amended Complaint repeatedly references the Tolling Agreement between Ms. Hill and Ardent. Where, as here, a document is incorporated by reference into the operative pleading, the Court may consider that document alongside the allegations in the complaint. After the Court ordered the parties to provide a copy of the Tolling Agreement, Ms. Hill filed that document on October 13, 2025. The Tolling Agreement, which was signed by Ms. Hill and Ardent, provides that it is made by and between AHS Management Company, Inc., d/b/a Ardent Health Services, referred below as Defendant and Vanessa Hill, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated non-exempt employees of Defendant who were affected by the Kronos Ransomware Hack. The statute of limitations on any Fair Labor Standards Act claim set forth in the pending Action shall not run during the duration of this Agreement against any Putative Opt-In Plaintiffs who worked for Defendant from December 11, 2021. The statements in the Tolling Agreement, read alongside the factual allegations in Second Amended Complaint, are sufficient to establish a material misrepresentation. Specifically, Ardent, through the Tolling Agreement, represented that Ms. Hill was its employee. Now, after the statute of limitations has run as to its subsidiaries, Ardent asserts that it never employed Ms. Hill and that she was instead employed by one of its subsidiaries. Assuming the Second Amended Complaint is correct and Ardent is now disclaiming its employer status, its representation in the Tolling Agreement that it was Ms. Hill's employer was a misrepresentation. The Second Amended Complaint also adequately pleads that Ms. Hill reasonably relied on Ardent's representation that it was her employer when entering into the Tolling Agreement, and that she will be harmed if Ardent is now allowed to renounce employer status. Specifically, if Ms. Hill had known that she did not have a Tolling Agreement with her employer, she would have sought collective certification and fully litigated this matter without delay. Nothing more is required to plead reliance and injury at this stage. Accordingly, Ardent's motion to dismiss Ms. Hill's fraud-based claims must be denied. The Defendant's arguments for dismissing the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim have even less merit. To begin with, the Defendant asserts that Ms. Hill lacks Article III standing to plead a breach of contract because she pleads no connection of any kind to Tennessee. This argument borders on frivolous. Ms. Hill never asserts that she or the proposed opt-in plaintiffs are relying exclusively on Tennessee law. The Defendant's standing argument appears to conflate Article III's requirements with the standards governing class and collective actions, such as commonality. Although applying conflicting laws from different states could present a commonality problem, none of the elements of Article III standing require a plaintiff to plead that her injury occurred in a particular state. Therefore, the Defendant's standing argument must be rejected. Next, the Defendant seeks dismissal of Ms. Hill's breach of contract claim, arguing that she provides only bare-bones legal assertions devoid of any supporting facts. The Defendant asserts that Ms. Hill does not attach, identify, or describe in any way the alleged contract upon which her breach of contract claim is based. The Defendant dramatically overstate the requirements of notice pleading. To plead a breach of contract under either Tennessee or Texas law, Ms. Hill is only required to allege: (1) the existence of an enforceable contract; (2) nonperformance amounting to breach of the contract; and (3) damages caused by the breach of contract. She has done just that. She has identified her employment contract and the employment contracts of potential opt-in plaintiffs as existing, enforceable contracts. She has also alleged that the Defendant breached those employment contracts by failing to pay her and her co-workers in a timely manner and in the correct amounts. And finally, the Court can infer damage because workers did not receive the amount of pay they were owed. Accordingly, Ms. Hill has easily satisfied her burden of pleading a breach of contract claim. Unjust Enrichment Claim According to the Court "The Defendant argues that Ms. Hill's unjust enrichment claim should be dismissed because: (1) she lacks standing; (2) she pleads the existence of written or oral contracts, and (3) her allegations about the benefit she conferred on the Defendant are conclusory. As an initial matter, the Defendant's standing argument fails for the same reasons discussed above. Their other arguments for dismissal are equally unavailing. Contrary to the Defendant's assertion, Ms. Hill has alternatively pled a claim for unjust enrichment. She alleges that she and her co-workers provided benefits to the Defendant through their labor; that the Defendant knowingly and willingly accepted the benefits of that labor; and it would be inequitable for the Defendant to retain the benefits of the labor without paying for it. Ms. Hill's unjust enrichment allegations are clearly an alternative theory in case the Defendant denies the existence of a contract or raises other contractual defenses. But the fact that Ms. Hill pleads alternative and even inconsistent theories does not doom her unjust enrichment claim. At this stage, Ms. Hill can plead both the existence and non-existence of a contract. Therefore, the Defendant's arguments for dismissing Ms. Hill's unjust enrichment claim must be rejected." In sum, after considering the Tolling Agreement, the Court concluded that Ms. Hill has adequately pleaded her fraud-based claims. Likewise, Ms. Hill adequately pleads her breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims and therefore the Defendant's motion to dismiss was denied. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gh7cI1 from PacerMonitor.com AW DISTRIBUTING: Fails to Warn of Cleaning Duster Danger, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Catherine O'Meara, individually and as Trustee for the Next of Kin of Thomas Byers and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AW Distributing, Inc. AW Product Sales & Marketing, Inc., Shanghai AW Custom Manufacturing & Aerosol Propellant Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Ludao Technology Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Sprayvan Commodity Technology Development Co., Ltd., CRC Industries, Inc., Berwind Corporation, The ODP Corporation, ODP Business Solutions, LLC, Office Depot, LLC, OfficeMax North America, Inc., OfficeMax, LLC, The Home Depot, Inc., Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Menard, Inc., and John Doe Company Defendants #1-10, Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-03792 (D. Minn., September 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for strict products liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of express warranty, and public nuisance arising from the foreseeable danger of their cleaning duster products. According to the complaint, during the relevant time period, Defendants' computer dusters do not feature warnings about inhalant addiction or guidance to prevent inhalant abuse. The said products are composed almost entirely of 1-1, Difluoroethane (DFE), an odorless gas listed as HFC-152a. When inhaled, DFE causes intense and immediate intoxication. Intentionally inhaling DFE also results in a loss of motor control and impaired judgment, leading to numerous accidents and deaths, says the suit. Allegedly, the Defendants fail to provide a warning that intentionally inhaling DFE is extremely addictive, which increases the risk of injury and death to inhalant users. The Defendants also do not provide any resources on their warning label on how to deal with inhalant addiction. And they falsely warrant that a bitterant is added which will help deter inhalant abuse. Thomas "Tommy" Byers' official cause of death was volatile inhalant toxicity due to 1,1-difluoroethane. Tommy's death, and the deaths of many others, could have been avoided had Defendants not negligently and defectively designed, tested, labeled, marketed, and distributed their duster products, the suit further alleges. The Plaintiff is decedent Thomas "Tommy" Byers' legal and biological mother, legal heir, and was appointed Trustee for the Next-of-Kin of Thomas Byers, decedent, by the Hennepin County District Court on September 8, 2025. AW Distributing, Inc. provides a range of duster and spray products, including Air Duster, Ultra Duster, and Mini Spray, among others.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent J. Moccio, Esq. BENNEROTTE & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 3085 Justice Way, Suite 200 Eagan, MN 55121 Telephone: (612) 799-5160 E-mail: vincent@bennerotte.com - and - Ruth Anne French, Esq. Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Sarah T. Bradshaw, Esq. Jennifer Salva-Cushing, Esq. Bradley Thomas, Esq. Monica Sandu, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 4820 W. 75th St. Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 Facsimile: (913) 261-7564 E-mail: rafrench@midwest-law.com rsharp@midwest-law.com sbradshaw@midwest-law.com jsalvacushing@midwest-law.com bthomas@midwest-law.com msandu@midwest-law.com BLUEOVAL SK: Fails to Provide Proper OT Wages, O'Brien Says ----------------------------------------------------------- SEAN O'BRIEN and RANDALL MOORE, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs V. BLUEOVAL SK, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-13072-JJCG-DRG (E.D. Mich., September 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Kentucky's wage and hour law. According to the complaint, when Plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours per week, they were not paid overtime wages at the rate of time and one half their regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek as a result of Defendant's illegal pay policies and practices. The Defendant's method of paying Plaintiffs and the Class Members in violation of the FLSA and Kentucky law was willful and was not based on a good faith and reasonable belief that their conduct complied with the law, the suit asserts. The Defendant knew the requirement to pay overtime to their employees, but intentionally and/or recklessly chose not to do so. Accordingly, the Defendant's violations were willful, the suit adds. The Class Members are all current and former production operators and production technicians field technicians who were paid on an hourly rate basis by Defendant at any time during the three-year period before the filing of this Complaint to the present. BlueOval SK, LLC is a business that manufactures batteries for vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. FOTY LAW GROUP, P.C. 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: DFoty@fotylawgroup.com - and - Jennifer L. McManus, Esq. FAGAN MCMANUS PC 25892 Woodward Avenue Royal Oak, MI 48067-0910 Telephone: (248) 542-6300 E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com BOYD GAMING: Neely Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- HOLLY NEELY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOYD GAMING CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01846 (D. Nev., September 29, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and that was impacted in a cyber incident. On September 6, 2025, the Defendant learned of unusual activity within its network. In response, the Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the data breach. According to the complaint, the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the private information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The sensitive nature of the data exposed through the Data Breach signifies that Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered irreparable harm. The Plaintiff and Class Members have lost the ability to control their private information and are subject to an increased risk of identity theft. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. Boyd Gaming Corporation is a casino entertainment company based in Las Vegas, Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (725) 235-9750 E-mail: 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 E-mail: gwells@stranchlaw.com jroberts@stranchlaw.com - and - Ken Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Rd Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com CRESCENT HOTELS: Ritchie Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- JAKE RITCHIE, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. CRESCENT HOTELS & RESORTS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive Defendants, Case No. 25STCV28423 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., September 29, 2025) is a representative action, pursuant to the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 against the Defendants for alleged unlawful labor practices and policies. According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the state labor law by failing to compensate Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees with minimum wages for all hours worked; failing to accurately track and/or pay for all minutes actually worked; and engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to work off the clock. In addition, the Defendant failed to pay at the proper overtime include all forms of remuneration into the regular rate of pay for the pay periods where overtime was worked and the additional compensation was earned for the purpose of calculating the overtime rate of pay. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from approximately April of 2023 through approximately October of 2024 as a non-exempt employee. Crescent Hotels & Resorts is headquartered in the United States. The Company's line of business includes operating public hotels and motels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert D. Wilson III, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: robert@tomorrowlaw.com DISCORD INC: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Uceta Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE UCETA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DISCORD, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-08582 (N.D. Cal., October 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its third-party customer support service systems following a data breach on or about September 20, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Discord, Inc. is a technology company, with its principal place of business located in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: (Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 117 E. Colorado Blvd, Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91105 Telephone: (213) 723-0707 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 Email: ekim@lcllp.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Email: jerry@lcllp.com FAY NUTRITION: Intercepts Electronic Communications, Sasaki Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANNA SASAKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FAY NUTRITION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11859 (N.D. Ill., September 29, 2025) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all U.S. residents who accessed and navigated www.faynutrition.com, and whose electronic communications were intercepted or recorded through the advertising technology provided by third parties. In pursuit of profit and without regard for patient privacy, the Defendant aids, agrees with, employs, conspires, or otherwise enables third parties, including Google, LLC, TikTok, Ltd., Meta Platforms, Inc., and LinkedIn Corporation, to eavesdrop on communications sent and received by Plaintiff and Class Members on the Website, including communications that contain protected health information and personally identifiable information, the complaint alleges. By failing to procure consent before enabling third parties to intercept these communications, the Defendant violated state and federal law including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the suit asserts. Fay Nutrition helps patients book appointments with board-certified nutritionists and registered dietitians covered by insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec M. Leslie, 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: aleslie@bursor.com - and - Stephen A. Beck, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 679-9006 E-mail: sbeck@bursor.com GEI CONSULTANTS: Paramoure Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Patricia Paramoure, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. GEI CONSULTANTS, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0012612 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Oct. 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02861-JDP. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts claims for: violation of Business & Professions Code; failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; failure to pay sick pay wages; and retaliation in violation of Labor Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Nader, Esq. Eric F. Della Santa, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-840-3150 Facsimile: 916-840-3159 Email: michael.nader@ogletree.com eric.dellasanta@ogletree.com GENERAL PARTS: Brown Sues Over Inaccessible Property ---------------------------------------------------- Kevin Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENERAL PARTS DISTRIBUTION, LLC, dba ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, Case No. 3:25-cv-01840 (S.D. Ill., Sept. 29, 2025), is brought against Defendant, asserting violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations and the Illinois Civil Rights Remedies Restoration Act (the "Remedies Restoration Act") as a result of the Defendant inaccessible and discriminative property. The Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff--and other similarly situated mobility impaired persons--by implementing policies and practices that consistently violate the ADA and Remedies Restoration Act's accessibility guidelines and routinely result in access barriers at Defendant's facilities. The ADA expressly authorizes the injunctive relief aimed at modification of existing policies, practices, or procedures that Plaintiff seeks in this action. Specifically, Plaintiff experienced difficulty and risk of harm navigating the parking lot and path of access to Defendant's business due to excessive sloping, all in violation of the ADA and Restoration Act, in that those violations exist due to inadequate compliance policy or practice that leads to, as in the case of Defendant's parking lots, a systematic failure to maintain accessibility features at Defendant's properties, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a person with a mobility disability who uses a wheelchair for mobility. General Parts Distribution, LLC collectively owns, leases, and/or operates at least 152 Advance Auto Parts retail stores within in the state of Illinois and 6 within the Southern District of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan F. Andres, Esq. JONATHAN F. ANDRES, P.C. 1127 Hoot Owl Rd. St. Louis, MO 63005 Phone: (636) 633-1208 Email: andres@andreslawpc.com GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS: $275MM Class Settlement Wins Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS PRICING ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 2:16-md-02724-CMR (E.D. Pa.), the Court entered judgment approving class settlement. Preliminarily, the Court finds that Settling Defendants caused timely notice of the settlement and related materials to be sent to the Attorney General of the United States and the Attorneys General of all U.S. states, territories, and the District of Columbia pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). The Court preliminarily approved the following Settlement Class: "All persons and entities in each of the 50 United States (except Indiana and Ohio), as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, that indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for any Drugs at Issue, other than for resale, from May 1, 2009 through Dec. 31, 2019." This class excludes: (a) the Defendants, their officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries and affiliates; (b) all federal governmental entities; (c) all state governmental entities (except for cities, towns, municipalities, counties and other local governmental entities with self-funded prescription drug plans, all of which are included in the class); (d) all governmental Medicaid agencies, private Medicaid managed care organizations, and consumers who were covered by Medicaid for their purchases of Drugs at Issue; and (e) Judges assigned to this case and any members of their immediate families. For avoidance of doubt, the class does not include (i) persons or entities who only purchased Drugs at Issue for purposes of resale or directly from Defendants; (ii) fully insured employers to the extent that they use fully-insured plans (i.e., employers that purchased insurance covering 100% of their reimbursement obligation to members); and (iii) pharmacy benefit managers. Where a putative class member has purchases that meet the definition of the EPP Settlement Class, but also has purchases that fall within one or more of the exclusions set forth in this Paragraph I.J., that putative class member is included in the EPP Settlement Class only with respect to those purchases that meet the definition of the EPP Settlement Class. The Drugs at Issue are those listed in Appendix A to the Settlement Agreement. End-Payer Class Plaintiffs ("EPPs") seek final approval of settlements with Defendants Sandoz Inc. and Fougera Pharmaceuticals for a monetary payment between $230,000,000 and $275,000,000. The Settlement Fund consists of a $275,000,000 monetary payment, which may be reduced by up to $45,000,000 based on the number of opt-outs from the settlement. EPPs seek the following disbursements from the Settlement Fund: (1) service awards for the class representatives of $30,000 for each TPP Class Representative and $5,000 for each Consumer Class Representative, for a total of $410,000; (2) attorneys’ fees of one-third of the net settlement fund; 3) litigation expenses of $25,700,911.41; and (4) costs of notice and claims administration, of up to $750,000.44 In the context of the settlement award, the Court finds that these amounts are appropriate. As a final note, the Court has carefully considered the Amici States' requests regarding the reporting of claims data, anti-suit injunctions, and potential offsets and has determined that they are premature at this stage. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qlc6jH at no extra charge.[CC] GERBER PRODUCTS: Class Settlement in Hasemann Wins Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER HASEMANN and DEBBIE HOTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GERBER PRODUCTS CO., Case No. 1:15-cv-02995-EK-JAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Eric Komitee entered an order granting the motion for approval of the settlement: -- The motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards is granted in part. -- The litigation, and all claims asserted therein, is settled and is dismissed on the merits with prejudice. Consummation of the settlement shall proceed as described in the Settlement Agreement, and the Court reserves jurisdiction over the subject matter of the litigation, the parties, and the settlement class members with respect to the interpretation and implementation of the settlement. -- The Court thus awards a total of $7,319,559 in attorneys' fees, approximately twenty-five percent below the $9,780,435.55 that class counsel requested. -- Class counsel has also requested $1,219,564.45 in costs and expenses. Having reviewed the affidavits and ex parte filings, the Court finds that counsel's expenses reflect the typical costs of complex litigation. This request is granted in full. Class counsel seeks $10,000 service awards for two of the named plaintiffs, Jennifer Hasemann and Wendy Manemeit. Accordingly, the service award requests are granted. The Court concludes that the settlement agreement is generally fair, adequate, and reasonable. The Plaintiffs are New York and Florida consumers who purchased Gerber's "Good Start Gentle" infant formula ("GSG") between Oct. 10, 2011, and April 23, 2016 (the "Class Period"). They allege that Gerber "engaged in a pattern of false, deceptive, and unfair business practices through advertising and marketing representations." Gerber is an American purveyor of baby food and baby products. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tBhUNz at no extra charge.[CC] GRISWOLD INDUSTRIES: Cotero Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Griswold Industries. The case is styled as Fidel Castaneda Cotero, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Griswold Industries, Case No. 25STCV29528 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kings Cty., Oct. 8, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Griswold Industries Company -- https://griswoldcontrols.com/ -- produces metal components.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com GULF COAST COLLECTION: Ynoa Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Christian Ynoa, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-02708-MSS-LSG (M.D. Fla., Oct. 3, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, Inc. -- https://gulfrcm.com/ -- offers collection services working with consumers and creditors for account resolution.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. Mitchell David Hansen, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com mitchell@jibraellaw.com HANS INVESTMENTS: Hirning Sues Over Physical Barriers ----------------------------------------------------- Jacob Hirning, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HANS INVESTMENTS LLC and PARKER RD. HOOTERS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03164 (D. Colo., Oct. 7, 2025), is brought based upon Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access the property and violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"). The Plaintiff has visited the Property twice before as a customer and advocate for the disabled. The Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property within six months after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of the revisit is to be a return customer of Hooters, to determine if and when the Property is made accessible and to substantiate already existing standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes. The Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Property to purchase and/or receive food and services as a return customer as well as for Advocacy Purposes but does not intend to re-expose himself to the ongoing barriers to access and engage in a futile gesture of visiting the public accommodation known to Plaintiff to have numerous continuing barriers to access, as such, Plaintiff is currently deterred from returning to the Property until the barriers to access are removed, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. HANS INVESTMENTS LLC is a Colorado limited liability company that transacts business in the State of Colorado and within this judicial district.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Phone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com HAVCO WOOD PRODUCTS: Jones Files Suit in E.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Havco Wood Products, LLC. The case is styled as Jessica Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Havco Wood Products, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00157-SNLJ (E.D. Mo., Sept. 26, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Havco Wood Products LLC -- https://www.havco.com/ -- manufactures the finest oak hardwood flooring for trailers, truck bodies and containers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE AND BRADY LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (816) 888-8010 Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com HEALTHCARE INC: Irvin Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthcare, Inc. The case is styled as Joe Irvin, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-24644-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 8, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Healthcare, Inc. operates as a software company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 31 Samana Drive Miami, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com HERTZ CORP: Court OK's Stipulation on Class Cert Hearing Sched -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maharaj v. The Hertz Corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-04726 (N.D. Cal., Filed Sept. 14, 2023), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting stipulation for Revised Briefing and Hearing Schedule on Motion for Class Certification. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.[CC] Hertz operates as a car rental and mobility providers, offering vehicles under the Hertz, Dollar, Thrifty, and Firefly brands. HESS CORP: Wagner Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Exhibits ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA WAGNER, individually and on behalf of the HESS CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' SAVINGS PLAN, and all others similarly situated, v. HESS CORPORATION and HESS CORPORATION INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, Case No. 6:24-cv-00004-H (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file the supplemental exhibits to his motion for class certification. The Defendants do not oppose this motion Mr. Wagner would be materially prejudiced if he is not allowed to present this new evidence for the Court's consideration and file these supplemental exhibits to address the Defendants' challenge to the numerosity of the proposed class. Mr. Wagner brings these claims under ERISA on behalf of the Hess Corporation Employees' Savings Plan and its participants, as well as himself. On April 14, 2025, Mr. Wagner moved for class certification and appointment of class counsel. On July 30, 2025, Mr. Wagner deposed Don Lennard, the lead consultant for the Plans. On Aug. 7, 2025, the Defendants served amended responses and objections to the Plaintiff's interrogatory. The Defendants concurrently produced to Mr. Wagner a document showing more than 2,000 participants had invested in the Challenged Investment Options. Hess is an American global independent energy company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=huLuY7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Boyd A. Byers, Esq. Teresa Shulda, Esq. Samuel J. Walenz, Esq. Scott Nehrbass, Esq. Rachel N. Gonzales, Esq. FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP 1551 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100 Wichita, KS 67206 Telephone: (316) 291-9716 Facsimile: (316) 771-6011 E-mail: bbyers@foulston.com tshulda@foulston.com swalenz@foulston.com snehrbass@foulston.com rgonzales@foulston.com - and - Andrew C. Whitaker, Esq. Parker D. Young, Esq. FIGARI + DAVENPORT, LLP 901 Main Street, Suite 3400 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 939-2000 Facsimile: (214) 939-2090 E-mail: andrew.whitaker@figdav.com parker.young@figdav.com HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS: McCool Files Suit in N.D. Georgia ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The case is styled as Jason McCool, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-05668-SEG (N.D. Ga., Oct. 3, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals -- https://hitechpharma.com/ -- is a leading global healthcare supplier that develops, manufactures and distributes over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription pharmaceuticals, nutritional products, active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) and consumer products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Weiner, Esq. Jeffrey Sand, Esq. WEINER & SAND LLC 6065 Roswell Road, Suite 700-121 Sandy Springs, GA 30328 Phone: (404) 205-5029 Email: aw@wsjustice.com js@wsjustice.com - and - Douglas M. Werman, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: 312-419-1025 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com HILLSHIRE BRANDS: Wilim Files Suit in N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hillshire Brands Company, et al. The case is styled as Eric Wilim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Hillshire Brands Company, Tyson Foods, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-12281 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 7, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. The Hillshire Brands Company was an American food company based in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com HOBBY LOBBY STORES: Aguilar Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage ------------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Aguilar, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Aet ("PAGA") v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., an Oklahoma corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CV146211 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Sept. 29, 2025), is brought in violation of California Labor Codes as a result of unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, wages not timely paid upon termination, non-compliant wage statements. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and class members were entitled to receive certain wages for overtime compensation and that they were not receiving certain wages for overtime compensation. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and class members were entitled to receive at least minimum wages for compensation and that, in violation of the California Labor Code, they were not receiving at least minimum wages for work done off-the-clock, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly-paid employee, in its multiple California stores until April of 2025. The Defendants operate retail stores in various locations throughout the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. Bainer, Esq. THE BAINER LAWFIRM 1999 Harrison St., Suite 1800 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 922-1802 Email: mbainer@bainerlawfirm.com HOME DEPOT: Hrynacz Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Andy Hrynacz, as a private attorney general, and/or on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., d/b/a BLINDS.COM, Case No. 25-2-24531-4 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Sept. 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01871. The Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on August 26, 2025, asserting violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Action ("CPA"), and Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA"), on behalf of himself and a putative Washington. The Plaintiff alleges that Home Depot violated the Washington CEMA and CPA by transmitting commercial emails with subject lines that are "materially false or misleading."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel M. Hattis, Esq. Che Corrington, Esq. HATTIS LUKACS & CORRINGTON 11711 SE 8th Street, Suite 120 Bellevue, WA 98005 Phone: 425-233-8650 Email: dan@hattislaw.com che@hattislaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Alexandra M. Shulman, Esq. Jeffrey R. Kaatz, Esq. BUCHALTER A Professional Corporation 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-319-7052 Email: ashulman@buchalter.com jkaatz@buchalter.com HOME SERVICE NETWORK: Gomez Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Gomez, for himself and on behalf of those similarly situated v. HOME SERVICE NETWORK, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-16093 (D.N.J., Sept. 29, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to obtain declaratory relief, a judgment against Defendant as to liability, recover unpaid back wages, an additional equal amount in liquidated damages, and to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendant in this case violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated field technicians the legally mandated overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Although Plaintiff worked over 40 hours in virtually every workweek, Defendant failed pay Plaintiff any overtime premiums for his overtime hours worked. Instead, Defendant paid Plaintiff solely his per job amount per job completed, irrespective of the number of hours and overtime hours worked each week. Defendant maintained unlawful policies and practices pursuant to which they failed to pay field technicians proper overtime premiums, says the complaint. The Plaintiff hired by the Defendant to work as a field technician at its Orlando, Florida location on March 2024. HSN, was and continues to be a Virginia Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (954) WORKERS Fax: (954) 327-3013 Email: afrisch@forthepeople.com HWAT INC: Prerost Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hwat Inc. The case is styled as Jamie Prerost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hwat Inc. doing business as: Choice Home Warranty, Case No. 1:25-cv-12219 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 6, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Hwat Inc. doing business as Choice Home Warranty -- https://www.choicehomewarranty.com/ -- offers coverage for common home repairs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com INDEBTED USA INC: Gonzalez Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Indebted USA Inc. The case is styled as Christian Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Indebted USA Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-01216 (W.D. Tex., Sept. 27, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. InDebted USA Inc. -- https://www.indebted.co/ -- is a third party debt collection agency located in O'Fallon, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (813) 340-8838 Email: zane@jibraellaw.com INGMELEC USA: Marino Sues Over Inaccessible Property ---------------------------------------------------- Jose Marino, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. INGMELEC USA LLC D/B/A CHEVRON AKA AMROS CHEVRON, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-24609-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 7, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' Commercial Property being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although well over 33 years has passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make its/their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the commercial property and commercial restaurant business to be rife with ADA violations, despite having been previously sued by other Plaintiffs for ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial restaurant business located within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that is in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial property. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property and commercial restaurant business has each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and restaurant and has endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. INGMELEC USA LLC D/B/A CHEVRON AKA AMROS CHEVRON owns, operates and/or oversees the subject commercial property and gas station businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com INNOVATE FOOD GROUP: Victor Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------- Zephyrin Victor, and all others similarly situated v. Innovate Food Group LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-62018-AHS (S.D. Fla., Oct. 8, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. Accordingly, Defendant's Website was incompatible with Plaintiff's screen reading software and keyboard. The fact that Plaintiff could not communicate with or within the Website left Plaintiff feeling excluded, frustrated, and humiliated, and gave Plaintiff a sense of isolation and segregation, as Plaintiff is unable to participate in the same online experience, with the same access to the sales, services, discounts, as provided at the Website and in the physical cafes as the non-visually disabled public, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times, has been blind and visually disabled. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a U.S.-based restaurant specializing in Southern American cuisine, wood-grilled dishes, and Louisiana-inspired comfort food, the restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aleksandra Kravets, Esq. ALEKSANDRA KRAVETS, ESQ. P.A. 865 SW 113 Lane Pembroke Pines, FL 33025 Phone: 347-268-9533 Email: ak@akesqpa.com IOWA HEALTH SYSTEM: Morris Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Morris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IOWA HEALTH SYSTEM d/b/a UNITYPOINT HEALTH, Case No. 1:25-cv-01416-JEH-RLH (C.D. Ill., Oct. 7, 2025), is brought for unpaid overtime and regular wages brought by hourly paid employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"). The Defendant has a wage and hour policy and practice that rounds Plaintiff's and similarly situated hourly employees' clock in and clock out times to the advantage of Defendant and to the detriment of Plaintiff and all other similarly situated hourly employees. The Defendant's time clock rounding policies and practices violate the FLSA, IMWL and IWPCA and result in the underpayment of overtime and regular wages. The Defendant's wage violations will be shown from, among other things, a comparison of the face of Defendant's pay stubs to employees and Defendant's own time records for those same employees. The Defendant's rounding practices are perfectly suitable to collective and class action Treatment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed from August 1, 2022 to March 30, 2023 as an hourly, non-exempt Billing Specialist. The Defendant is a vertically integrated healthcare system.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James X- Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312-201-0575 - and - Thomas M. Ryan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C. 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-726-3400 IRATEL PROPERTIES: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ---------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. IRATEL PROPERTIES, L.L.C., Case No. 1:25-cv-24595-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 6, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial property and restaurant, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial property, in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. IRATEL PROPERTIES, L.L.C., owns and operates a commercial property and hotel business located in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: jacosta@lawgmp.com. - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Primary Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com ITALO JEWELRY: Porto Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Italo Jewelry, LLC. The case is styled as Luiza Porto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Italo Jewelry, LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-02697 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 2, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Italo Jewelry -- https://www.italojewelry.com/ -- offer varied jewelry with high quality and unique design.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Berman, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (865) 603-7365 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com ITS LOGISTICS: Class Settlement in Guthrie Suit Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH GUTHRIE, individually, on a representative basis, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ITS LOGISTICS, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00729-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Grosjean entered an order: -- Directing clerk of court to terminate findings and recommendations as no longer pending; and -- Granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Preliminary Approval of a Class Action Settlement. As the parties have consented to the undersigned addressing the Plaintiff's motion, the Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the Aug. 27, 2025 findings and recommendations as no longer pending before the formerly assigned District Judge. The Plaintiff's motion to preliminarily certify the settlement class and approve the parties' proposed settlement is granted. The following class is conditionally certified: "All current and former truck drivers who resided in California and who were employed by Defendant, ITS Logistics, LLC and paid on a piece rate basis (e.g., per day or per mile) at any time during the period of March 1, 2019, through June 28, 2024 (the Class Period)." The Plaintiff's PAGA Claims are conditionally approved for settlement purposes only as a representative action under the Private Attorneys General Act under California Labor Code section 2698 et seq. on behalf of the following: "All current and former truck drivers who resided in California and who were employed by Defendant, ITS Logistics, LLC and paid on a piece rate basis (e.g., per day or per mile) at any time during the period of March 9, 2020, through June 28, 2024 (the PAGA Period)." The Plaintiff Keith Guthrie is appointed as the class representative. The Plaintiff's counsel Brian Mankin and Misty Lauby are appointed as class counsel. The proposed class notice is approved, with corrections to the typographical errors specified below, and then shall be disseminated according to the notice plan described in the parties' settlement agreement. Specifically, the notice states as follows: "Up to one-third of the Settlement Amount to Class Counsel for attorneys' fees ($137,500) and up to $27,000 for heir litigation expenses." This notice should be corrected to read, "Up to one-quarter of the Settlement Amount to Class Counsel for attorneys' fees ($137,500) and up to $27,000 for their litigation expenses." Also, the notice shall omit the language requiring a person to provide the "last four digits of your social security number." ILYM Group, Inc. is approved as the settlement administrator. ITS provides logistics solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wHtVIm at no extra charge.[CC] JAMES A. TACCI: Complete Medical Sues Over Denied Statutory Right ----------------------------------------------------------------- Complete Medical Care Services Of NY, PC d/b/a COMPLETE CARE, ARIC HAUSKNECHT, M.D., MARLENE BRIONES FRANCO, LCSW, STACEY JAFF, M.D., JONATHAN KENT, PsyD, and JASON MAAS, P.A., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JAMES A. TACCI, M.D., J.D., M.P.H. (FACOEM, FACPM), as the Medical Director of the NEW YORK STATE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, HEATHER MACMASTER, as General Counsel to the NEW YORK STATE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, STEVEN SCOTTI, as the Executive Director of the NEW YORK STATE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, CHRISTOPHER FALING as the Principal Workers' Compensation Examiner of the NEW YORK STATE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, FREIDA D. FOSTER, as the Chair and Commissioner of the NEW YORK STATE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, RENEE DELGADO, as the Vice Chair of the NEW YORK STATE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, PAMELA CAGGIANELLI, as a board member of the NEW YORK STATE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, ROBERT BERGIN, as a board member of the NEW YORK STATE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, STEVEN A. CRAIN, as a board member of the NEW YORK STATE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, CLARISSA M. RODRIGUEZ, as a board member of the NEW YORK STATE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, PETER DE JESUS, JR., as a board member of the NEW YORK STATE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, MARIA MATOS, as a board member of the NEW YORK STATE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, GINA SILLITTI, as a board member of the NEW YORK STATE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, MARTIN M. DILAN, as a board member of the NEW YORK STATE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, MARK HIGGINS, as a board member of the NEW YORK STATE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, GIORIBELLE PEREZ, ESQ., as a board member of the NEW YORK STATE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, and SAMUEL G. WILLIAMS, as a board member of the NEW YORK STATE WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD, Case No. 1:25-cv-08055 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 29, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief brought by Plaintiffs against Defendants who administer the WCB as a result of denied constitutional and statutory right. The Plaintiffs, and other Workers' Compensation ("WC") providers like Plaintiffs (the "Class"), are being repeatedly and consistently denied their constitutional and statutory right to adequate notice and an opportunity for a fair hearing before being deprived of payments related to their medical treatment of WC patients. As a result, since some time in or about 2022, Plaintiffs alone have lost at least $575,000 in compensation related to their treatment of WC patients without adequate notice or an opportunity to be heard. Moreover, absent declaratory and injunctive relief from this Court, Plaintiffs and the Class are at risk of losing an untold amount of future payments earned through treating WC patients without adequate notice and opportunity to be heard. The Defendants' actions will only continue to deny WC providers adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard with respect to denied bills and HP-1 submissions. The Board's failure to provide WC providers with adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard before rendering decisions on HP-1 submissions deprives Plaintiffs and the Class of payment for services they provided to treat WC patients, thereby violating Plaintiffs' and the Class's Due Process guarantees under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Unites States Constitution and Article 1 Section 6 of the New York State Constitution, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs and the Class are medical providers in the WC system. Complete Care is a professional corporation authorized to provide medical services in New York with offices located in Bronx, New York and New York, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa Giunta-Popeil, Esq. Katie O'Leary, Esq. Joshua D. Sussman, Esq. WEISS ZARETT BROFMAN SONNENKLAR &LEVY P.C. 3333 New Hyde Park Road, Suite 211 New Hyde Park, NY 11042 Phone: (516) 627-7000 JDK & COMPANY: Winfield-Newton Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Camille Winfield-Newton, and others similarly situated v. JDK & COMPANY, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 25CV138264 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Oct. 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-08428. This action is a civil action of which this Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, and is one which may be removed to this court by defendant pursuant to the provision of 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a) in that it arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Robert L. Sallander, Esq., GREENAN, PEFFER, SALLANDER & LALLY LLP 2000 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 390 San Ramon, CA 94583 Phone: (925) 866-1000 Facsimile: (925) 830-8787 Email: rsallander@gpsllp.com JETLINE CAPITAL: Redick Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jetline Capital LLC. The case is styled as William Redick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jetline Capital LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01276-CDB (E.D. Cal., Sept. 26, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Jetline Capital -- https://jetlinecapital.com/ -- is a financial service provider that is centered around the customer and creating lasting lucrative relationships.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com JOFIN O'BANNON: Trial in King Class Suit Continued -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TATI ABU KING, et al., V. JOFIN O'BANNON, in his official capacity as Chairman of the State Board of Elections for the Commonwealth of Virginia, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00408-JAG (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. entered an order generally continuing the trial in the case pending the resolution of the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. Further, the Court schedules a hearing on the cross motions for summary judgment, motion for class certification, and motions to exclude testimony on Thursday, Oct. 23, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ybMaDw at no extra charge.[CC] KABAFUSION HOLDINGS: Ahmad Sues Over Unpaid Compensations --------------------------------------------------------- Sultan Ahmad, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general v. KABAFUSION HOLDINGS LLC; a California Limited Liability Company; STELLAR HEALTHCARE INC., dba STELLAR HOME HEALTH, a California Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV28358 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 29, 2025), is brought for recovery of penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), to recover civil penalties and address an employer's violations of the California Labor Code. In this case, Defendants violated various provisions of the California Labor Code. The Defendants implemented policies and practices which led to unpaid wages resulting from Defendant's: failure to pay wages including overtime, failure to provide meal periods for every work period exceeding more than 10 hours per day and failure to pay an additional hour's of pay or accurately pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a meal period; failure to provide rest breaks for every four hours or major fraction thereof worked and failure to pay an additional hour's of pay or accurately pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing a rest period; failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to timely pay wages upon separation. As a result Plaintiff seeks penalties under Labor Code 2698 on behalf of the general public as private attorney general and all other aggrieved employees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in May 2023 as a Non-Exempt Employee with the title of Reimbursement Department Assistant until Plaintiff's separation from Defendants' employ in April 2025. The Defendants operates as a health center for infusion therapy services in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Gregory Mauro, Esq. Michael Calvo, Esq. Lauren Falk, Esq. Ava Issary, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Wins Summary Judgment v. Venkataraman --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SRINIVASAN VENKATARAMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. KANDI TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-08082-DEH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ho entered an order: -- granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, -- denying the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and -- denying the parties' motion for leave to file reply briefs. Because the Plaintiff offers no other evidence of loss causation or damages, his Section 10(b) claims fail as a matter of law. And because the Plaintiff's control personal liability claims under Section 20(a) depend on a primary violation, those claims, too, must be dismissed. In sum, the Plaintiff's failure to timely disclose the Second Werner Declaration was neither substantially justified nor harmless, and each Softel factor weighs in favor of excluding it. Plaintiff offers virtually no argument to the contrary. And here, the Court concludes that the exclusion of the Second Werner Declaration is appropriate in light of the Plaintiff's noncompliance with the discovery schedule and minimal efforts to defend or remedy that noncompliance. The Plaintiff brings this action alleging violations of (1) section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 by the Defendants Xiaoming Hu, Cheng Wang, Liming Chen, Jerry Lewin and Henry Yu (collectively, the "Individual Defendants") and Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. ("Kandi" or the "Company") and (2) section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the Individual Defendants. The Plaintiff commenced this action on June 10, 2020. Kandi designs, develops, manufactures, and sells electric vehicle (EV) products. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1muXbH at no extra charge.[CC] KEYSTONE PREMIER: Class Discovery in Ortiz Suit Due Jan. 30, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN ORTIZ, v. KEYSTONE PREMIER SETTLEMENT SERVICES, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01509-KM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Karoline Mehalchick entered an order that class discovery shall be completed by Jan. 30, 2026, and any class certification motions shall be filed by Feb. 27, 2026. The Court further entered an order that the case is referred to Chief Magistrate Judge Daryl F. Bloom for referral of settlement matters to a United States Magistrate Judge. Keystone is responsible for the purchase, refinance, residential, and commercial title insurance requirements. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zWPfiG at no extra charge.[CC] KIRBY BEAUTY LLC: Murray Files Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kirby Beauty LLC. The case is styled as Erin Murray, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kirby Beauty LLC doing business as: Cecred, Case No. 2:25-cv-09330 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 30, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Kirby Beauty LLC doing business as Cecred -- https://cecred.com/ -- is a privately held American hair care brand founded in 2024 by American singer-songwriter Beyonce.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com KRC MATERIALS: Brewer Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------ Evan Brewer, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KRC MATERIALS, INC. F/K/A KNIFE RIVER CORPORATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-01843-AN (D. Ore., Oct. 8, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") (collectively, the "Oregon Wage Statutes"). Although the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members for the proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis. Specifically, the Defendant's regular practice--including during weeks when Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members worked in excess of 40 hours (not counting hours worked "off-the clock")--was (and is) to require Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members to perform integral and indispensable work attending meetings and preparing materials and equipment—off-the-clock and without pay prior to starting their respective shifts each day (the "Start-Up Work"). The Defendant also failed to include all non-discretionary bonuses in the Plaintiff and Putative Collective/Class Members' regular rate(s) of pay for purposes of calculating and paying their overtime compensation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Knife River as an Operator in Oregon from August 2019 until August 2024. Knife River is a provider of an aggregates-based, vertically integrated construction materials company across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Sullivan, Esq. BUCHANAN ANGELI ALTSCHUL & SULLIVAN LLP 621 SW Morrison Street, Suite 1250 Portland, OR 97205 Phone: (503) 974-5023 Fax: (971) 230-0337 Email: dana@baaslaw.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Ste. 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com L3 TECHNOLOGIES: Gallardo Suit Removed to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Armando Gallardo, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. L3 TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; L3 UNIDYNE, INC., an unknown business entity; L3HARRIS MARITIME SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; L-3 COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CU039054C was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on Sept. 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02552-JES-DEB. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges claims on behalf of himself and all other current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees of Defendants for: failure to pay overtime compensation under Labor Code sections 510 and 1198; failure to provide meal periods under Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512; failure to authorize and permit rest breaks under Labor Code section 226.7; failure to pay minimum wages under Labor Code sections 1194, 1197 and 1197.1; failure to timely pay final wages at termination under Labor Code sections 201 and 202; failure to timely pay wages during employment under Labor Code sections 204; failure to keep requisite payroll records under Labor Code section 1174(d); failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements under Labor Code section 226(a); failure to indemnify necessary business expenses under Labor Code sections 2800 and 2802; and unfair business practices under Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alison L. Tsao, Esq. Heather L. Caughron, Esq. Arthur S. Gaus, Esq. Candace DesBaillets, Esq. CDF LABOR LAW LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 333 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 981-3233 Email: atsao@cdflaborlaw.com hcaughron@cdflaborlaw.com agaus@cdflaborlaw.com cdesbaillets@cdflaborlaw.com LA SANDWICHERIE: Castro Sues Over Discriminative Website -------------------------------------------------------- Arantza Castro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LA SANDWICHERIE GROUP LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company D/B/A LA SANDWICHERIE, Case No. 1:25-cv-24648-JAL (S.D. Fla., Oct. 8, 2025), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), as a result of the Defendant's discriminative website. The Defendant was and still is an organization owning and operating the website located at https://lasandwicherie.com. Since the website is open through the internet to the public as an extension of the retail stores, by this nexus the website is an intangible service, privilege and advantage of Defendant's brick and mortar locations, the Defendant has subjected itself and the associated website it created and maintains to the requirements of the ADA. The website also services Defendant's physical stores by providing information on its brand and other information that Defendant is interested in communicating to its customers about its physical locations. Although the Website appeared to have an "accessibility" statement displayed and an "accessibility" widget/plugin added, the "accessibility" statement and widget/plugin, when tested, still could not be effectively accessed by, and continued to be a barrier to, blind and visually disabled persons, including Plaintiff as a completely blind person. Plaintiff, although she attempted to access the statement, thus, was unable to receive any meaningful or prompt assistance through the "accessibility" statement and the widget/plugin to enable her to quickly, fully, and effectively navigate the Website, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses the computer regularly, but due to her visual disability, Plaintiff cannot use her computer without the assistance of appropriate and available auxiliary aids, screen reader software, and other technology and assistance. LA SANDWICHERIE, is a company that sells sandwiches, salads, desserts, and beverages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diego German Mendez, Esq. MENDEZ LAW OFFICES, PLLC P.O. BOX 228630 Miami, FL 33172 Phone: 305.264.9090 Facsimile: 1-305.809.8474 Email: info@mendezlawoffices.com - and - Richard J. Adams, Esq. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 6500 Cowpen Road, Suite 101 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Phone: 786-290-1963 Facsimile: 305-824-3868 Email: radamslaw7@gmail.com LACOSTE USA INC: Hashimi Suit Removed to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Qasem Hashimi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LACOSTE USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 25CU039088N was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on Sept. 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02559-BEN-BLM. In the State Action, Plaintiff alleges claims for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA"), and the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTCA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lynn R. Fiorentino, Esq. ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP 44 Montgomery Street, 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415.757.5500 Facsimile: 415.757.5501 Email: lynn.fiorentino@afslaw.com LANGDON & COMPANY: Windsor Suit Removed to E.D. North Carolina -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jeremiah Windsor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LANGDON & COMPANY, LLP, Case No. 25CV030501-910 was removed from the Superior Court of North Carolina for the County of Wake, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of North Carolina on Oct. 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00627-FL. The Complaint asserts the following claims: negligence, breach of implied contract, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. The foregoing claims arise from Plaintiff's allegations that Langdon failed to adequately protect certain Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") (collectively, the "Private Information") of patients of Easter Seals UCP North Carolina & Virginia, Inc., which it had access to as a provider of accounting services to Easterseals.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer K. Van Zant, Esq. S. Wilson Quick, Esq. BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, LLP P.O. Box 26000 Greensboro, NC 27420 Phone: 336-373-8850 Facsimile: 336-378-1001 Email: jvanzant@brookspierce.com wquick@brookspierce.com LAYTON MART SHOPPING: Malsack Sues Over Physical Barriers --------------------------------------------------------- Darrin Malsack, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. LAYTON MART SHOPPING CENTER LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01489 (W.D. Wis., Oct. 7, 2025), is brought based upon Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access the property and violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"). The Plaintiff has visited the Property twice before as a customer and advocate for the disabled. The Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of the revisit is to be a return customer of Saraphino's, to determine if and when the Property is made accessible and to substantiate already existing standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes. The Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Property to purchase food and/or services as a return customer as well as for Advocacy Purposes but does not intend to re-expose himself to the ongoing barriers to access and engage in a futile gesture of visiting the public accommodation known to Plaintiff to have numerous and continuing barriers to access, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. LAYTON MART SHOPPING CENTER LLC, is the owner or co-owner of the real property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Phone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com LAYTON MART SHOPPING: Segovia Sues Over Physical Barriers --------------------------------------------------------- Salvador Segovia, Jr., and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 3702 FM 1960 LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-04788 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 7, 2025), is brought based upon Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access the property and violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"). The Plaintiff has visited the Property twice before as a customer and advocate for the disabled. The Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of the revisit is to be a return customer of Saraphino's, to determine if and when the Property is made accessible and to substantiate already existing standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes. The Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Property to purchase food and/or services as a return customer as well as for Advocacy Purposes but does not intend to re-expose himself to the ongoing barriers to access and engage in a futile gesture of visiting the public accommodation known to Plaintiff to have numerous and continuing barriers to access, as such, Plaintiff is deterred from returning to the Property as a customer until after the barriers to access are removed, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. LAYTON MART SHOPPING CENTER LLC, is the owner or co-owner of the real property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Phone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com LBU LIGHTING LLC: Campbell Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------ Andree Campbell, and all others similarly situated v. LBU Lighting, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 0:25-cv-62020-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 8, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. Accordingly, Defendant's Website was incompatible with Plaintiff's screen reading software and keyboard. The fact that Plaintiff could not communicate with or within the Website left Plaintiff feeling excluded, frustrated, and humiliated, and gave Plaintiff a sense of isolation and segregation, as Plaintiff is unable to participate in the same online experience, with the same access to the sales, services, discounts, as provided at the Website and in the physical cafes as the non-visually disabled public, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times, has been blind and visually disabled. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls 8 U.S. – based lighting stores specializing in indoor and outdoor fixtures, designer lamps and decor accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aleksandra Kravets, Esq. ALEKSANDRA KRAVETS, ESQ. P.A. 865 SW 113 Lane Pembroke Pines, FL 33025 Phone: 347-268-9533 Email: ak@akesqpa.com LGCY POWER: Tovar Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sheila Tovar, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. LGCY POWER, LLC; Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CU044343C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on Oct. 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02627-AJB-MSB. The Plaintiff's Complaint then alleges 7 claims against Defendant, including the following causes of action: Declaratory Relief; Willful Misclassification; Failure to Pay Overtime; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; Failure to Provide Accurate and Itemized Wage Statements; and Violation of California Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Drew R. Hansen, Esq. Suzanne C. Jones, Esq. NOSSAMAN LLP 18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949.833.7800 Facsimile: 949.833.7878 Email: dhansen@nossaman.com sjones@nossaman.com - and - Madeline G. Hassell, Esq. NOSSAMAN LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, 34th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213.612.7800 Facsimile: 213.612.7801 Email: mhassell@nossaman.com LONG FENCE AND HOME: Hennessy Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Long Fence and Home LLLP. The case is styled as Michael Hennessy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Long Fence and Home LLLP doing business as: Long Home, Case No. 0:25-cv-61952-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 29, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Long Fence -- https://www.longfence.com/ -- is the top fence company and installation contractor for residential and commercial fences, decks & railing in VA, MD & DC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com LULULEMON USA INC: Brown Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Nishae D. Brown, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. LULULEMON USA INC., a Nevada corporation; LULULEMON, a business entity of form unknown; LULULEMON ATHLETICA USA, INC., a business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV25917 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Oct. 8, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-09629. The Plaintiff's Complaint pleads the following nine causes of action: failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages and overtime, failure to pay proper sick pay, failure to pay proper vacation wages, failure to provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay all final wages, failure to indemnify, and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Katharine J. Liao, Esq. Eric W. Witt, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 555 South Flower Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: +1 213 624 2500 Facsimile: +1 213 623 4581 Email: katharine.liao@squirepb.com eric.witt@squirepb.com MANPOWER US: Tollar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Manpower U.S. Inc. The case is styled as Dashawn Brandy Tollar, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Manpower U.S. Inc., Manpowergroup US Inc., Yanfeng International Automotive Technology US II LLC, Yanfeng International Automotive Technology US LLC, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV145662 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Sept. 25, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." ManpowerGroup -- https://www.manpower.com/ -- is the global leader in next-generation winning innovative workforce solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com MANZANA LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing Reset to May 1, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zavala Martinez, et al., v. Manzana, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01900 (D. Conn. Filed Dec. 2, 2024), the Hon. Judge Victor A. Bolden entered an order granting joint motion for extension of time as follows: The case deadlines are reset as follows. -- Designation and Reports from Expert Feb. 6, 2026 Witnesses (all experts). -- Expert Depositions: April 3, 2026 (all experts). -- Depositions of Fact Witnesses: April 3, 2026 -- Close of Discovery: April 3, 2026 -- Deadline for Motion for May 1, 2026 Class Certification: -- Deadline for Parties to May 8, 2026 Jointly Request a Settlement Conference before a Magistrate Judge: -- Deadline for Dispositive Motions: May 29, 2026 -- Deadline for Responses to Dispositive June 19, 2026 Motions: -- Deadline for Replies to Responses July 2, 2026 to Dispositive Motions: -- Deadline for Joint Trial Memorandum July 31, 2026 (including any motions in limine): -- Trial Ready Date: Aug. 31, 2026 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). [CC] MARCO'S FRANCHISING: Castro Sues Over Discriminative Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Arantza Castro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MARCO'S FRANCHISING, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company D/B/A MARCO'S PIZZA, Case No. 1:25-cv-24591-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 6, 2025), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), as a result of the Defendant's discriminative website. The Defendant was and still is an organization owning and operating the website located at https://www.marcos.com/. Since the website is open through the internet to the public as an extension of the retail stores, by this nexus the website is an intangible service, privilege and advantage of Defendant's brick and mortar locations, the Defendant has subjected itself and the associated website it created and maintains to the requirements of the ADA. The website also services Defendant's physical stores by providing information on its brand and other information that Defendant is interested in communicating to its customers about its physical locations. Although the Website appeared to have an "accessibility" statement displayed and an "accessibility" widget/plugin added, the "accessibility" statement and widget/plugin, when tested, still could not be effectively accessed by, and continued to be a barrier to, blind and visually disabled persons, including Plaintiff as a completely blind person. Plaintiff, although she attempted to access the statement, thus, was unable to receive any meaningful or prompt assistance through the "accessibility" statement and the widget/plugin to enable her to quickly, fully, and effectively navigate the Website, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses the computer regularly, but due to her visual disability, Plaintiff cannot use her computer without the assistance of appropriate and available auxiliary aids, screen reader software, and other technology and assistance. MARCO'S PIZZA, is a company that sells pizza, pizzoli, pizza bowls, calzones, subs, breads, wings, salads, desserts, and beverages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diego German Mendez, Esq. MENDEZ LAW OFFICES, PLLC P.O. BOX 228630 Miami, FL 33172 Phone: 305.264.9090 Facsimile: 1-305.809.8474 Email: info@mendezlawoffices.com - and - Richard J. Adams, Esq. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 6500 Cowpen Road, Suite 101 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Phone: 786-290-1963 Facsimile: 305-824-3868 Email: radamslaw7@gmail.com MARIN CITY HEALTH: Iglesias Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marin City Health and Wellness Center. The case is styled as Diana Iglesias, as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of other similarly situated "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 v. Marin City Health and Wellness Center, Case No. CV0007625 (Cal. Super. Ct., Marin Cty., Sept. 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Marin City Health and Wellness Center -- https://marincityclinic.org/ -- is a dental clinic in Marin City, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maralle Messrelian, Esq. MM LAW, APC 500 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 2000 Glendale, CA 91203-3304 Phone: 818-810-7747 Email: maralle@mmlawapc.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Mancinelli Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Brook Mancinelli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. C25-02420 was removed from the Superior Court for Contra Costa County, California, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Sept. 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-08246. The Complaint asserts claims for violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act; and violation of the Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Maryam Arshad, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: 310.393.4000 Facsimile: 310.394-4700 Email: marshad@cozen.com - and - Paul K. Leary, Jr., Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 665-6911 Fax: (215) 665-2013 Email: pleary@cozen.com - and - Chad E. Kurtz, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 2001 M Street NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 463-2521 Fax: (202) 640-5939 Email: ckurtz@cozen.com MAZE DIGITAL: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maze Digital, LLC. The case is styled as Peter Wilson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Maze Digital, LLC doing business as: EliteGhostWriter.us, Case No. 1:25-cv-02056-CAB (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 26, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Maze Digital, LLC doing business as Elite Authors -- https://eliteghostwriter.us/ -- offers the best ghostwriting services for aspiring authors, storytellers, and subject matter experts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian T. Giles, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN T. GILES 1470 Apple Hill Road Cincinnati, OH 45230 Phone: (513) 379-2715 Email: Brian@gileslenox.com MEDSTAR HEALTH INC: Sanders Files Suit in D. Maryland ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MedStar Health Inc. The case is styled as Tracy Sanders, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MedStar Health Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-03325 (D. Md., Oct. 7, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. MedStar Health -- https://www.medstarhealth.org/ -- is a not-for-profit healthcare organization. It operates more than 120 entities, including ten hospitals in the Baltimore–Washington metropolitan area of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Edmund Howerton, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 223 Duke of Gloucester Street Annapolis, MD 21401 Phone: (410) 269-6620 Fax: (410) 269-1235 Email: zhowerton@milberg.com MEMORIALCARE MEDICAL: Valencia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Memorialcare Medical Foundation. The case is styled as Yesenia Garcia Valencia, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Memorialcare Medical Foundation, Case No. 25STCV29236 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 6, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." MemorialCare Medical Group -- https://www.memorialcare.org/ -- offers primary care to patients through family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, and urgent care.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2003 Phone: 213-761-5484 Fax: 818-561-3938 Email: nazo@koullaw.com MIKE TOPANGA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Beltran Due Oct. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Priscilla Beltran v. Mike Topanga, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:25-cv-00989-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Holcomb entered an order setting following briefing schedule for the Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification: Event Date Deadline to file class certification motion: Oct. 31, 2025 Deadline to file opposition to class Nov. 7, 2025 certification motion: Deadline to file reply re class certification Nov. 14, 2025 motion: Hearing on class certification motion: Nov. 21, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. 2. A trial schedule is set. The Court will issue a separate trial scheduling order. The Defendant is A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RZ8wIj at no extra charge.[CC] MOTILITY SOFTWARE: Lockwood Files Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Motility Software Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as G. Scott Lockwood, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Motility Software Solutions, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-01887 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 30, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Motility Software Solutions -- https://www.motilitysoftware.com/ -- is a premier provider of dealer management software for the specialty vehicle industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (954) 647-1866 Email: mweekes@milberg.com MOTILITY SOFTWARE: Markovits Stock Named Class Counsel in Lockwood ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as G. Scott Lockwood, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Motility Software Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00330-WHR-CHG, and Heather Reynicke and Christopher Santora, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Motility Software Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-0331-MJN-PBS, Judge Walter H. Rice of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Joint Motion to Consolidate and to Appoint Interim Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs G. Scott Lockwood, Heather Reynicke, and Christopher Santora moved to consolidate the actions, appoint interim class counsel, set scheduling deadlines, and permit the filing of a single consolidated complaint. Having reviewed the Motion, the Memorandum in Support, and the Complaints in the above-captioned actions and having found that the cases involve some of the same issues of fact and law, grow out of the same alleged data breach involving Defendant Motility Software Solutions, Inc., have many of the same claims, and have proposed class definitions that will encompass the same persons, the Court found that the cases have sufficient commonality of issues and parties to warrant consolidating the cases. The Court further found that the benefits of consolidation are not outweighed by any risk of prejudice or jury confusion. The effect of such consolidation will be judicial economy and preserving the Parties' resources, as well as avoiding disparate rulings in separate actions. The Court further found that the early identification and appointment of Interim Class Counsel is in the best interests of the parties and of judicial economy. Such appointment will establish a clear leadership structure on the Plaintiffs' side, will allow Defendant and Defendant's counsel clear direction with respect to Plaintiffs' counsel's authority to negotiate and enter into stipulations, confer with respect to deadlines and other issues, and agree to Court required discovery plans. Furthermore, such interim appointment will ensure that the members of the putative Classes are adequately protected up to and until the Court's final determination on whether or not to certify the Class. Accordingly, because the Court found that the Related Actions have sufficient commonality of law and fact, and that consolidation will not increase the risk of an unfair outcome, and for good cause shown, the Motions were granted. The above-captioned actions were consolidated for all purposes into the first filed action (the Lockwood Action) and recaptioned In re Motility Data Breach Litigation, No. 3:25-cv-00330. Future pleadings, motions, briefs, and other papers shall be filed in that case, which shall hereinafter be a Consolidated Action. The Clerk was directed to close the Reynicke & Santora action, No. 3:25-cv-00331. The Court ordered that Plaintiffs' consolidated amended class action complaint shall be filed within 45 days after this Order approving consolidation. Defendant's obligation to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaints was held in abeyance pending a consolidated amended complaint. Defendant shall answer, move, or otherwise file a response to the consolidated amended complaint within 45 days of the filing of the consolidated amended class action complaint. Plaintiffs shall have 30 days to file a response to any motion, and Defendant shall have 30 days following any response filed by Plaintiffs to file its reply in support of any motion. The Court ordered that Terence R. Coates of Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC, Gary Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, and Raina Borrelli of Strauss Borrelli, PLLC are hereby appointed as Interim Class Counsel for all Plaintiffs. Interim Class Counsel must assume responsibility for coordinating the work of preparing and presenting all of Plaintiffs' claims, delegating work responsibilities and monitoring the activities of all Plaintiffs' counsel, calling meetings of Plaintiffs' counsel, determining and presenting to the Court and opposing parties the position of the Plaintiffs on all matters arising during pretrial proceedings, serving as the primary contacts for all communications between Plaintiffs and Defendant, directing and executing on behalf of Plaintiffs the filing of pleadings and other documents with the Court, appearing at all court hearings and conferences, receiving and initiating communication with the Court, initiating and conducting discussions and negotiations with counsel for Defendant on all matters including settlement, negotiating and entering into stipulations with opposing counsel, initiating coordinating and conducting all discovery on Plaintiffs' behalf, selecting consulting with and employing experts for Plaintiffs, encouraging and enforcing efficiency among all Plaintiffs' counsel, assessing Plaintiffs' counsel for the costs of the litigation, preparing and distributing periodic status reports, developing and recommending for Court approval practices and procedures pertaining to attorneys' fees and expenses, and performing such other duties as are necessary in connection with the prosecution of this litigation or as may be further directed by the Court . Settlement Discussions Any discussions of a settlement of this litigation shall be conducted by Interim Class Counsel and any counsel designated by Interim Class Counsel. In advance of each status conference, Interim Class Counsel and Defendant's counsel will meet and confer regarding the agenda for the conference. Unless otherwise ordered, Interim Class Counsel and Defendant's counsel will file a joint notice setting out the proposed agenda and the parties' joint and/or respective positions no later than two business days prior to each status conference A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZYGLTf from PacerMonitor.com MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Haff Poultry Sues Over Anticompetitive Conduct --------------------------------------------------------------- Haff Poultry, Inc., Nancy Butler, James Michael Mercer, Jonathan Walters, Marc Mcentire, Karen Mcentire, Daniel W. Gaines, Jr., and all others similarly situated v. MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC., MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF DELAWARE, INC., and ALLEN HARIM FOODS LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01215-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 30, 2025), is brought brought on behalf of a proposed class of broiler chicken ("Broiler") growers, also known as poultry growers (referred to herein as "Growers"), against vertically integrated poultry company defendants ("live poultry dealers" or "Integrators"), which operate Broiler processing plants ("Complexes"), concerning the Integrators' anticompetitive, collusive, predatory, unfair, and bad faith conduct in the domestic market for Broiler growing services (also referred to herein as "Broiler Grow-Out Services"). This case involves agreements by the Defendants and their Co-Conspirators (defined more fully, infra, and together with the Defendants, the "Cartel") to reduce competition for Broiler Grow-Out Services by agreeing to limit or eliminate efforts to solicit, recruit, or hire one another's Growers, with the purpose and effect of fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing Grower compensation below competitive levels (the "No-Poach Agreement"). By agreeing not to compete for the services of one another's Growers, the Cartel members attempted to insulate themselves from normal competitive pressures. The No-Poach Agreement inoculated the Cartel against competition for Grower pay and "wars" for Grower labor, which would have a market wide ripple effect on Grower compensation because of standardization in Grower contracts and pay rates (for example, Grower pay was not individually negotiated but offered on a take it or leave it basis to all similarly situated Growers). The No-Poach Agreement was designed to keep Growers, as author Christopher Leonard noted in The Meat Racket: The Secret Takeover of America's Food Business, "in a state of indebted servitude, living like modern-day sharecroppers on the ragged edge of bankruptcy," says the complaint. The Plaintiff Haff Poultry, Inc. began providing Broiler Grow-Out Services for Hudson, a major poultry producer, in Oklahoma in 1996. Mountaire Farms, Inc. is a privately owned poultry processor founded in 1914 and headquartered in Millsboro, Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Russell D. Paul, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 800 N. West Street, Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 691-9545 Email: rpaul@bergermontague.com - and - Daniel J. Walker, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 559-9745 Email: dwalker@bergermontague.com - and - Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Patrick F. Madden, Esq. Michaela L. Wallin, Esq. Sarah R. Zimmerman, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: ecramer@bergermontague.com pmadden@bergermontague.com mwallin@bergermontague.com szimmerman@bergermontague.com - and - Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 580 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 633-4980 Email: gsmith@hausfeld.com - and - Erika A. Inwald, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (646) 357-1100 Email: einwald@hausfeld.com - and - Larry D. Lahman, Esq. Roger L. Ediger, Esq. MITCHELL DECLERK, PLLC 202 West Broadway Avenue Enid, OK 73701 Phone: (580) 234-5144 Facsimile: (580) 234-8890 Email: ldl@mdpllc.com rle@mdpllc.com - and - Charles D. Gabriel, Esq. CHALMERS, BURCH & ADAMS, LLC North Fulton Satellite Office 5755 North Point Parkway, Suite 251 Alpharetta, GA 30022 Phone: (678) 735-5903 Facsimile: (678) 735-5905 Email: cdgabriel@cpblawgroup.com - and - J. Dudley Butler, Esq. BUTLER FARM & RANCH LAW GROUP, PLLC 499-A Breakwater Drive Benton, MS 39039 Phone: (662) 673-0091 Facsimile: (662) 673-0091 Email: jdb@farmandranchlaw.com - and - Michael L. Silverman, Esq. ROACH LAW FIRM 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 810 Chicago, IL 60601 Email: msilverman@rlbfirm.com MW SERVICES LTD: Boucher Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jennifer Boucher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MW SERVICES LTD., d/b/a WOW VEGAS, Case No. CV-25-005830 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Stanislaus, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Sept. 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-at-01288. The Plaintiff's Complaint against Defendant purports to assert violations of: California's Unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200 (the "UCL"); and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (the "CLRA") based on allegations that Defendant publishes entertaining online games, namely casino-themed social games via a platform available at https://www.wowvegas.com (the "Platform"), which Plaintiff erroneously contends to be an illegal gambling website under California law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Howard M. Privette, Esq. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 600 Anton Blvd, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7689 Phone: 714.427.7000 Facsimile: 714.427.7799 Email: hprivette@swlaw.com - and - A. Jeff Ifrah, Esq. Abbey Block, Esq. IFRAH LAW P.L.L.C. 1717 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 202.524.4140 Facsimile: 202.524.4141 Email: jeff@ifrahlaw.com ablock@ifrahlaw.com NALS NEST: Faces Owens Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------- GABRIEL OWENS, Plaintiff v. NALS NEST RESTAURANT INC. and NALINI RACKTOO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05437 (E.D.N.Y., September 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants seeking to recover unpaid minimum wage compensation, overtime wage compensation, and other damages for Plaintiff under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, Defendant Racktoo regularly exercised his authority to require Plaintiff to work additional hours beyond his scheduled work hours without providing the requisite overtime compensation. This included instances from July 2024 until August 2025, where the Plaintiff was required to work approximately 60 hours per week without receiving appropriate overtime pay. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and those other similarly situated individuals, for federal and state claims relating to unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours wages, failure to maintain records pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from approximately July 2024 until August 2025. He was employed primarily as a server, bartender, foodpacker and he answered the phone, and did any additional tasks assigned by Defendant Racktoo. Nals Nest Restaurant Inc. engages in restaurant business with principal place of business in South Richmond Hill, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 NAPCO SECURITY: Zornberg Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY ZORNBERG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. NAPCO SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RICHARD L. SOLOWAY, KEVIN S. BUCHEL, PAUL STEPHEN BEEBER, RICK LAZIO, DONNA SOLOWAY, ROBERT UNGAR, ANDREW J. WILDER, NEEDHAM & COMPANY, LLC, and WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., Case No. 1:23-cv-06465-BMC (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an Order: 1. Certifying a class action on behalf of the following class: "Those who purchased or otherwise acquired NAPCO common stock: (i) between Nov. 7, 2022 and Aug. 18, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period") and were damaged thereby; and/or (ii) pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectuses issued in connection with the offering of NAPCO common stock on Feb. 13, 2023 (the "Offering"), and were damaged thereby." 2. Appointing Hutchings and City of Warren to serve as Class Representatives of the Class; and 3. Appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Johnson Fistel, PLLP as Class Counsel A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MOozFs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. Erin W. Boardman, Esq. Avital O. Malina, Esq. Erin W. Boardman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com eboardman@rgrdlaw.com amalina@rgrdlaw.com - and - Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. Ralph M. Stone, Esq. Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, PLLP 40 Powder Springs Street Marietta, GA 30064 Telephone: (470) 632-6000 E-mail: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com ralphs@johnsonfistel.com jeffb@johnsonfistel.com - and - Thomas C. Michaud, Esq. VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 578-1200 E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com NEW ORLEANS, LA: Anderson Suit Remanded to Louisiana State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS ANDERSON, ET AL., V. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL. Case No. 2:24-cv-01157-DJP-KWR (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Darrel James Papillion entered an order granting the Motion to Remand filed by Pan-American Life Insurance Company ("PALIC"). Accordingly, it is ordered that the above-captioned matter be remanded to the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Louisiana. The state court did not order the creation of a separate civil action. And nothing in La. C.C.P. 1562D indicates a separate civil action was or should have been created. Thus, the effect of the state court order was merely that PALIC's claims would be tried separately from the Anderson plaintiffs' claims; PALIC's claims remained part of the broader Anderson action Because PALIC's claims remain part of the Anderson action, the Anderson action is the relevant civil action this Court must consider when determining whether it has jurisdiction. New Orleans is a Louisiana city on the Mississippi River, near the Gulf of Mexico. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N4Y4sU at no extra charge.[CC] NVK LEARNING: Williams Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Teachers -------------------------------------------------------------- LILLIE WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NVK LEARNING LLC, GERMANTOWN LEARNING LLC, COLLIERVILLE LEARNING LLC, HENDERSONVILLE LEARNING LLC, SPRING HILL LEARNING LLC, SOUTH FRANKLIN LEARNING LLC, ANDOVER LEARNING LLC, BILLERICA LEARNING LLC, DEDHAM LEARNING LLC, FOXBORO LEARNING LLC, FRANKLIN LEARNING LLC, LITTLETON LEARNING LLC, MILFORD LEARNING LLC, NATICK LEARNING LLC, NORTH ANDOVER LEARNING LLC, WALTHAM LEARNING LLC, WORCESTER LEARING LLC, BAKERSFIELD LEARNING LLC, CLOVIS LEARNING LLC, ELK GROVE LEARNING INC., FRESNO LEARNING LLC, HUNTINGTON BEACH LEARNING INC., NEWBURY PARK LEARNING LLC, ROHNERT PARK LEARNING LLC, TORRANCE CA LEARNING INC., PARAG LADDHA, NIDHI GHANDI, and KUNAL RAO, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02934-TLP-tmp (W.D. Tenn., October 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Williams was employed by the Defendants as a teacher, assistant teacher and a floater beginning in or about November 2024 until August 2025. NVK Learning LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Frankin, Tennessee. Germantown Learning LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Frankin, Tennessee. Collierville Learning LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Collierville, Tennessee. Hendersonville Learning LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Frankin, Tennessee. Spring Hill Learning LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Spring Hill, Tennessee. South Franklin Learning LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Frankin, Tennessee. Andover Learning LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Andover, Massachusetts. Billerica Learning LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in North Billerica, Massachusetts. Dedham Learning LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Washington Street, Massachusetts. Foxboro Learning LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Foxborough, Massachusetts. Franklin Learning LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Franklin, Massachusetts. Littleton Learning LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Littleton, Massachusetts. Milford Learning LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Milford, Massachusetts. Natick Learning LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Natick, Massachusetts. North Andover Learning, LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Andover, Massachusetts. Waltham Learning LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Littleton, Massachusetts. Worcester Learning LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Littleton, Massachusetts. Bakersfield Learning LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Irvine, California. Clovis Learning LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Irvine, California. Elk Grove Learning Inc. is an educational firm, headquartered in Irvine, California. Fresno Learning LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Irvine, California. Huntington Beach Learning Inc. is an educational firm, headquartered in Irvine, California. Newbury Park Learning LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Irvine, California. Rohnert Park Learning LLC is a limited liability company, headquartered in Irvine, California. Torrance Park Learning Inc. is an educational firm, headquartered in Irvine, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Russ Bryant, Esq. JACKSON SHIELDS HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: rbryant@jsyc.com ONTRAC LOGISTICS: Parker Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Davun Parker, individually, on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, and on behalf of all similarly situated employees v. Ontrac Logistics, Inc., Apparo Logistics CA LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-03894 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 8, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-08616-JSC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. OnTrac -- https://www.ontrac.com/ -- helps retailers and shippers with fast, flexible reliable last-mile delivery that reaches 80% of the US population in 31 states & D.C.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frank Hakim, Esq. Roxanne Allyson Davis, Esq. DAVIS GAVSIE HAKIM, LLP 100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 789-2240 Fax: (310) 789-2249 Email: Frank@DGHLawyers.com Roxanne@DGHLawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Damian Moos, Esq. SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON AND FEARY LLP 2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: (949) 800-8602 Fax: (626) 795-4790 Email: dmoos@scopelitis.com - and - Andrew James Ireland, Esq. Janis E. Steck, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 10 W. Market St., Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 637-1777 Fax: (317) 687-2414 Email: aireland@scopelitis.com jsteck@scopelitis.com - and - Charles Andrewscavage, Esq. SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON AND FEARY, P.C. 30 West Monroe St., Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 255-7167 Fax: (312) 422-1224 Email: candrewscavage@scopelitis.com OP2 LABS LLC: Hardy-Gerena Suit Removed to D. Columbia ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Giordano Hardy-Gerena, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. OP2 LABS, LLC D/B/A FROG FUEL, Case No. 2025-CAB-005725 was removed from the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, to the United States District Court for District of Columbia on Sept. 30, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03510. The Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, an injunction barring Defendant from selling its Produce in the District of Columbia until Defendant's labels, packaging, and marketing materials are revised; attorney's fees; and the costs of litigation, including expert fees.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David Barmak, Esq. Todd Rosenbaum, Esq. MINTZ, LEVM, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY & POPEO, P.C. 555 Street NW, suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: (202) 434-7300 Email: DBarmak@mintz.com TFRosenbaum@mmtz.com OUTCOMES ONE INC: Hoot Sues Over Recent Cyberattack --------------------------------------------------- Stella Hoot, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. OUTCOMES ONE, INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-01900 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 30, 2025), is brought arising from a recent cyberattack discovered by Defendant on July 1, 2025, resulting in a data breach of sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control of Defendant (the "Data Breach"). Outcomes' breach differs from typical data breaches because it affects consumers who had no relationship with Outcomes, never sought one, and never consented to Outcomes collecting and storing their information. The Data Breach resulted in unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of current and former consumers' highly personal information, including names, demographic information, ("personally identifying information" or "PII"), medical information and health insurance information, ("protected health information" or "PHI"). Plaintiff refers to both PII and PHI collectively as "Sensitive Information." On September 23, 2025--two months after the Data Breach was discovered--Outcomes finally began notifying Plaintiff and the Class of the Breach through breach notices ("Breach Notice"). The Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach made its consumers vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their Sensitive Information. The Defendant knew or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of PII and PHI misuse. In failing to adequately protect Plaintiff's and the Class's Sensitive Information, failing to adequately notify them about the breach, and by obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendant violated state and federal law and harmed thousands of its current and former consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim. Outcomes touts that it is "empowered by the pharmacist-patient relationship" and that "Outcomes clinical pharmacy, patient engagement, intervention and adherence solutions connect payers, pharma, and providers to the largest network in pharmacy."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Fax: (954) 525-4300 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com OUTCOMES ONE INC: Leach Files Suit in M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Outcomes One, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Richard Leach, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Outcomes One, Inc., Aetna, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-01872-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla., Sept. 26, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Outcomes One, Inc. -- https://www.outcomes.com/ -- provides pharmacy technology solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (954) 647-1866 Email: mweekes@milberg.com OXFORD HEALTH: Court Endorses Partial OK of Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOLLY C., et al., v OXFORD HEALTH INSURANCE, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-10144-PGG-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses recommends that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification be granted in part. The Court should certify a single class, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3), defined as follows: "All persons who were covered under an ERISA group health plan underwritten and/or administered by defendant Oxford Health Insurance, Inc., which was issued, amended, or renewed in the State of New York from Nov. 30, 2015 through Dec. 31, 2022, and who (1) were diagnosed with (a) anorexia nervosa, (b) bulimia nervosa, (c) EDNOS, (d) binge eating disorder, or (e) ARFID; and (2) received outpatient nutritional counseling from Nov. 30, 2015 to Dec. 31, 2022 (the Class Period); and (3) submitted claims for the nutritional counseling they received during the Class Period, which were denied by Oxford on the ground that outpatient nutritional counseling was not a covered benefit. Alternatively, the Court should certify the same class under Rule 23(b)(2) alone. Judge Moses further recommend that Plaintiffs Molly C. and Naomi L. be appointed as class representatives, and that Kantor and Kantor LLP be appointed class counsel. The claims of Molly C. and Naomi L. are not typical of the claims of the No Claims Subclass, as required by Rule 23(a)(3), and they cannot fairly and adequately protect its interests, as required by Rule 23(a)(4). Consequently, even if the No Claims Subclass were ascertainable, and even if its members all suffered the same injury, it could not be certified in the absence of a qualified representative who is a member of the class. The Plaintiffs allege, Oxford violated the Parity Act's requirement that "benefits for mental health treatment [be] no more restrictive than benefits for medical and surgical treatment." Oxford issues and administers health insurance plans in New York. A copy of the Court's order report and recommendation dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vsGbFG at no extra charge.[CC] PANO DION CORP: Shalto Sues Over Discrimination on Premises ----------------------------------------------------------- Lesaldo Shalto, and other similarly situated disabled individuals v. PANO DION CORP., and ARGOLIDA LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05612 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 6, 2025), is brought seeking equitable, injunctive, and declaratory relief; monetary and nominal damages; along with attorney's fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to: Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"); the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"); and the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL") due to the Defendants' discrimination on their Premises. The Defendants' Premises is a commercial space as defined by the NYSHRL, and NYCHRL because, inter alia, a portion of the building and structure thereof used or intended to be used as a business, office, and commerce. On July 20, 2025, and other occasions, Plaintiff attempted to enter Defendants9 popular Italian restaurant in the heart of Astoria known for its authentic gourmet wood-fired pizzas, Italian themed dishes and vegetarian options. Defendants9 Premises is less than 2.6 miles from Plaintiff9s home. Because the existing barriers prevent access and restrict the paths of travel, such as a step at the entrance, Plaintiff was unable to enter Defendants' Premises. Because the existing barriers prevent access and restrict the paths of travel, such as a step at the entrance, Plaintiff was denied full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the commercial space and public accommodations within Defendants' Premises. The Defendants denying Plaintiff the opportunity to participate in and benefit from the services or accommodations offered within Defendants' Premises because of his disability has caused Plaintiff to suffer an injury in fact. The Plaintiff intends on immediately returning to Defendants' Premises once the barriers to access are removed and Defendants' Premises are ADA compliant. The Defendants' failure to comply with the ADA, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, et seq. impedes upon the rights of Plaintiff, and other similarly situated disabled individuals, to travel free of discrimination and independently access Defendants' Premises, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair for mobility. Pano Dion owns, leases, operates, maintains, and controls all, or the relevant portions, of Defendants' Premises.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly G. Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC 155 E 55th Street, Suite 4H New York, NY 1002 Phone:(646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: brad@markslawpc.com PAPA JOHN'S USA: Hutton Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Colby Hutton, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PAPA JOHN'S USA, INC., Case No. 25-2-07959-31 was removed from the Superior Court for Snohomish County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Oct. 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01922. The Plaintiff brings this case as a proposed class action, and seeks certification of the putative class under Washington Superior Court Civil Rule ("CR").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lauren B. Rainwater, Esq. Rachel Herd, Esq. Caitlyn Courtney, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Phone: 206-622-3150 Email: laurenrainwater@dwt.com rachelherd@dwt.com caitlyncourtney@dwt.com PARAMOUNT ASSETS: Vallelunga Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paramount Assets, LLC. The case is styled as Angelina Vallelunga, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Paramount Assets, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-16172 (D.N.J., Oct. 1, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Paramount Assets -- https://paramountassets.com/ -- is NJ's best real estate investment firm offering a one-stop solution for property services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com ari@marcuszelman.com PENNEY OPCO LLC: Atkinson Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jacob Atkinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PENNEY OPCO LLC, a foreign limited liability company; and DOES 1-20, Case No. 232-19391-1 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of Washington State for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Oct. 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01924. On October 20, 2023, the Plaintiff filed his First Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Declaratory Relief ("FAC"). The FAC purports to seek relief from Defendant related to Washington's Equal Pay and Opportunity Act, RCW 49.58.110, requiring certain disclosures in job postings. Specifically, the FAC seeks damages for alleged violations of RCW 49.58.110; injunctive relief; and declaratory relief for Plaintiff and on behalf of a putative class.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. EMERY REDDY PLLC 600 Stewart St., Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.442.9106 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com The Defendants are represented by: Catharine Morisset, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-682-2308 Facsimile: 206-682-7908 Email: cmorisset@fisherphillips.com PEOPLE CONCERN: Lord Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The People Concern, et al. The case is styled as Tanya Lord, on behalf of herself and other aggrieved and similarly situated v. The People Concern, John Maceri, Case No. 25STCV28291 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." The People Concern -- https://www.thepeopleconcern.org/ -- is Los Angeles County's largest housing and social services agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory P. Wong, Esq. LYFE LAW, LLP 864 S Robertson Blvd., 3rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90035 Phone: 888-203-1422 Email: gregw@lyfe.com PLENUMS PLUS: Castro Suit Removed to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Luis Castro, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PLENUMS PLUS, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES I through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CU038213C was removed from the San Diego Superior Court of the State of California, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on Oct. 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02621-CAB-SBC. The Complaint asserts eight class-wide causes of action against Plenums stemming from the employment of Plaintiff and the putative class members. Specifically, the Complaint alleges causes of action for: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in Violation of Labor Code Sections 204, 1194, 1194.2, and 1197; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of Labor Code Sections 1194 and 1198; Failure to Provide Meal Periods in Violation of Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks Section 226.7; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses in Violation of Labor Code Section 2802; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination in Violation of Labor Code Sections 201, 202, and 203; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements in Violation of Labor Code Sections 226; Unfair Competition in Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher H. Conti, Esq. Benjamin P. Carney, Esq. Andrew B. Dizon, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (858) 597-9600 Facsimile: (858) 597-9601 Email: cconti@fisherphillips.com bcarney@fisherphillips.com adizon@fisherphillips.com POLLO CAMPERO HOLDING: Morales Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pollo Campero Holding LLC. The case is styled as Norling Morales, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Pollo Campero Holding LLC, Case No. 25STCV28286 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Pollo Campero -- https://us.campero.com/ -- is a fast-food restaurant chain with franchises throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Linton Files FDCPA Suit in D. Maryland ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Odogwu Linton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03257-MJM (D. Md., Oct. 2, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (PRA Group, Inc.) -- https://www.portfoliorecovery.com/ -- is a publicly traded global debt buyer based in Norfolk, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. PREGIS LLC: Hutsell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PREGIS LLC. The case is styled as Destiny Hutsell, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. PREGIS LLC, Case No. VCU326493 (Cal. Super. Ct., Tulare Cty., Sept. 30, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Pregis -- https://www.pregis.com/ -- offers smart packaging solutions to protect products, cut costs & boost sustainability.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com PRESTIGE MAINTENANCE: Court Consolidates Data Breach Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Amanda Ruiz, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. Prestige Maintenance USA, Ltd., Civil No. 4:25-CV-805-SDJ, Steven Moran, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. Prestige Maintenance USA, Ltd., Civil No. 4:25-CV-806-ALM, and Daeshia Hura, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. Prestige Maintenance USA, Ltd., Civil No. 4:25-CV-816-JDK, Judge Sean D Jordan of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate related actions in a putative class action lawsuit. Plaintiff Amanda Ruiz filed her Class Action Complaint on July 26, 2025, seeking to hold Prestige liable for disclosure of personally identifiable information belonging to herself and approximately 65,452 other individuals affected by a data breach incident in January 2025. Thereafter, two other related actions were filed by Plaintiffs Steven Moran and Daeshia Hura arising from the same data breach and operative facts and asserting substantially identical claims on behalf of overlapping putative classes. The cases brought by Moran and Hura were transferred to the Court. In the related actions, Plaintiffs alleged that Prestige failed to implement reasonable data security practices to protect Plaintiffs' and the putative class members' personally identifiable information, including their names and Social Security numbers, resulting in unauthorized access to this information. The related actions sought to remedy Prestige's alleged failures and the consequences arising therefrom. Following their receipt of letters informing them of the data breach, Plaintiffs each filed their complaints as putative class actions on behalf of themselves and all others affected by the data breach. The Plaintiffs requested that the Court (1) consolidate the related actions pursuant to Rule 42(a) under the title "In re Prestige Maintenance USA Data Breach Litigation," and (2) appoint Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow, P.A., John J. Nelson of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, and Andrew Shamis of Shamis & Gentile, P.A. as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel and Joe Kendall of the Kendall Law Group, PLLC as Texas Local Counsel, pursuant to Rule 23(g)(3). In their certificate of conference, Plaintiffs affirmed that Defendant Prestige Maintenance USA, Ltd. does not oppose consolidation and takes no position on leadership. The Court noted that Rule 42(a) permits a district court to consolidate actions before the court involving a common question of law or fact. The Court stated that a trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to consolidate a case pending before it. The Court further observed that consolidating actions in a district court is proper when the cases involve common questions of law and fact, and the district judge finds that consolidation would avoid unnecessary costs or delay. According to the Court "The purpose of consolidation is to allow district courts to manage their dockets efficiently while providing justice to the parties. However, consolidation is improper if it would prejudice the rights of the parties." The Court agreed with Plaintiffs' contention that the related actions are substantially the same and consolidation is appropriate. Each lawsuit arose from the same common set of alleged operative facts, namely the same data breach event. All Plaintiffs asserted overlapping claims, on behalf of similarly defined classes, seeking similar relief. The Court noted that under such circumstances, and in the specific context of multiple data breach actions, courts have found consolidation appropriate. The Court found that consolidation would also avoid the risk of inconsistent judgments in the related actions. It would also reduce the time and costs for all involved by eliminating the need for separate filings, discovery, settlement negotiations, hearings, and trials for the three cases arising from the same data breach. Further, the Court found that any prejudice to the parties resulting from consolidation would be minimal in comparison to these considerations. The Court noted that the related actions are procedurally positioned for consolidated treatment, as they are all pending before the Court and at the same early stage of proceedings, with each complaint filed within a one-week period, no discovery under way, and no dispositive motions pending. The Court concluded that the related actions, the parties thereto, and the Court would be best served in a consolidated proceeding, which would preserve party and judicial resources. Therefore, the Court ordered that the consolidation motion is granted in part. The related actions shall be consolidated for all purposes, including pretrial proceedings and trial, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) before the Court. Ruiz v. Prestige Maintenance USA, Ltd., Cause No. 4:25cv805, is designated the Lead Case. The Court instructed all parties to file any future filings in the Lead Case. The Court stated it would enter one docket control order, one protective order, and one discovery order that would govern the entire consolidated action. The local rules' page limitations for motions would apply to the consolidated action. The Court directed that all papers filed in the consolidated action shall be filed under the Lead Case and shall bear the caption "In re Prestige Maintenance USA Data Breach Litigation." The case file for the consolidated action would be maintained under Master File No. 4:25-cv-00805. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), and pending further order of the Court on this issue, the Court appointed Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow, John J. Nelson of Milberg, and Andrew Shamis of Shamis & Gentile as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel and Joe Kendall of Kendall Law Group as Texas Local Counsel to act on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the putative class members in the consolidated action. The Court outlined the responsibilities of Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel, which included: -- Establishing and maintaining a depository for orders, pleadings, hearing transcripts, and all documents served upon plaintiffs' counsel, and making such papers available to plaintiffs' counsel upon reasonable request; -- Coordinating the initiation and conduct of discovery on behalf of all plaintiffs consistent with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to discovery or any other subsequent order of the Court; -- Designating counsel to schedule depositions, set agendas and otherwise interact with defense counsel, various plaintiffs' counsel, and the settlement master (if one is appointed); -- Determining and presenting (in briefs, oral argument, or such other fashion as may be appropriate, personally or by a designee) to the Court and opposing parties the position of the plaintiffs on all matters arising during pretrial proceedings; -- Conducting settlement negotiations on behalf of plaintiffs, but not entering binding agreements except to the extent expressly authorized; -- Delegating specific tasks to other counsel in a manner to ensure that pretrial preparation for the plaintiffs is conducted effectively, efficiently, and economically; -- Entering into stipulations, with opposing counsel, necessary for the conduct of the litigation; -- Preparing and distributing periodic status reports to the parties; -- Maintaining adequate time and disbursement records covering service of designated counsel and enforcing guidelines approved by the Court as to the keeping of time and disbursement records and expenses; -- Monitoring the activities of co-counsel to ensure that schedules are met and unnecessary expenditures of time and funds are avoided; -- Performing such other duties as may be incidental to proper coordination of plaintiffs' pretrial activities or authorized by further order of the Court; and -- Submitting, if appropriate, suggestions for establishing additional committees and counsel for designation by the Court. The Court ordered that any additional plaintiffs' counsel would do all work in this litigation only at the direction of Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. No motion, request for discovery, or other pretrial proceedings shall be initiated or filed by any Plaintiff except through Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel and no other plaintiffs' counsel or firm shall be authorized to perform any work in the case without the express authorization of Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. The Court directed that Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel shall have sole authority to communicate with Defendant's counsel and the Court on behalf of any Plaintiff unless that authority is expressly delegated to other counsel. Defendant's counsel may rely on all agreements made with Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel, and such agreements shall be binding on all other Plaintiffs' counsel. The Court ordered that Plaintiffs in the consolidated action shall file an operative consolidated complaint within thirty days of the date of the Order. Defendant shall answer or otherwise respond to the consolidated pleading within twenty-one (21) days from the date on which Plaintiffs file the consolidated complaint. In the event that Defendant's response is a motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs shall have twenty-one (21) days to file their opposition brief, and Defendant shall have fourteen days to file a reply brief in support of their motion. The Court stated that the Order shall apply to any action filed in, transferred to, or removed to the Court which relates to the subject matter at issue in this case. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0a6hHO from PacerMonitor.com PRIMATE PRODUCTS: Cruz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Miguel Cruz, and all others similarly situated v. PRIMATE PRODUCTS LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00890 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 8, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant's unpaid overtime wages. The Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff all overtime wages owed. Specifically, beginning on September 22, 2024, Defendant changed Plaintiff's compensation to a salary basis and stopped paying him overtime compensation for hours over 40 in a workweek. Defendant misclassified Plaintiff as "exempt," Defendant misclassified Plaintiff as "exempt," although Plaintiff's primary duties did not involve the management of the enterprise or the exercise of discretion and independent judgment on matters of significance. Plaintiff routinely worked more than 40 hours per week and was not paid time-and-one-half his regular rate of pay for those overtime hours, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as Vet Technician. Primate Products LLC breeds and sells nonhuman primates for use in biomedical research, supplying animals to research institutions and laboratories across the country from its location in Immokalee, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason L. Gunter, Esq. Conor P. Foley, Esq. Peter M. Jennings, Esq. GUNTERFIRM 2165 W. First St., #104 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Phone: 239.334.7017 Email: Jason@GunterFirm.com Conor@GunterFirm.com Peter@GunterFirm.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Dawkins Sues Over Unlawful Trackers ----------------------------------------------------- Monica Dawkins, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, Case No. 2:25-at-01297 (E.D. Cal., Sept. 29, 2025), is brought for the Defendant's violation the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") By installing and activating the Trackers without obtaining user consent or a valid court order. The Defendant surreptitiously installs and operates tracking software on the Website without providing users with adequate notice or obtaining their informed consent. The software is intentionally deployed to accomplish Defendant's commercial objectives, including identity resolution, targeted advertising, and the monetization of consumer data. To achieve these goals, Defendant enables third-party technologies, that function as unlawful pen registers and/or trap and trace devices, to capture detailed information about users' electronic communications such as Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, session data, clickstream activity, and form inputs in real time. These tools operate covertly and without judicial authorization, violating the CIPA where, as here, Plaintiff and Class Members did not consent to the interception, nor did Defendant secure a court order permitting such surveillance. The Plaintiff and the Class Members did not consent to the installation, execution, embedding, or injection of the Trackers on their devices and did not expect their behavioral data to be disclosed or monetized in this way. By installing and using the Trackers without prior consent and without a court order, Defendant violated CIPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was in California when she visited the Website, which occurred during the class period. THE PROCTOR & GAMBLE COMPANY is an Ohio corporation that owns, operates, and/or controls the Website which is an online platform that offers goods and services to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: (949) 270-2798 Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC 40729 Village Dr., Suite 8 - 1989 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Phone: (562) 612-1708 Email: rc@rosscornelllaw.com PRODRIVERS WEST: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Jan. 9, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BENJAMIN CORTES, v. PRODRIVERS WEST, INC. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02451-SB-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered an order re stipulation to continue class certification briefing schedule: On Sept. 23, the Court continued the deadline for a hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification to the general non-discovery motion hearing deadline in the case management order (CMO). The Court did not set any briefing deadlines, so under the generally applicable local rules, the motion could be filed as late as January 9, with an opposition due January 16 and a reply due January 23. Although the parties have identified legitimate scheduling conflicts in late December, they have not shown that those conflicts necessarily require a continuance. The parties' application also does not adequately demonstrate good cause as required by the CMO: the parties’ one-page table is incomplete, mistakenly lists some completed events as "remaining," and does not identify any work completed from the issuance of the CMO in April 2025 until late August. Nevertheless, the Court will grant the parties' first request to allow essentially the same briefing schedule contemplated in the original CMO. The non-discovery motion hearing deadline is therefore continued to Feb. 27, 2026. Any motion for class certification shall be filed no later than January 7; the opposition shall be filed by January 21; and the reply, if any, shall be filed by February 4. The deadlines in the CMO otherwise remain unchanged. ProDrivers is a truck driver staffing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tAAqUQ at no extra charge.[CC] PYRAMID THEODORE: Voivod Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michael Voivod, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PYRAMID THEODORE MANAGEMENT LLC, a foreign limited liability company doing business as HOTEL THEODORE, ROOSEVELT HOTEL, RIDER, and MADE; ASPEN LODGING GROUP, LLC, a foreign limited liability company doing business as HOTEL THEODORE, HOTEL MURANO, and HOTEL MAX; THEODORE F&B, LLC, a foreign limited liability company doing business as RIDER and MADE COFFEE; ROOSEVELT HOTEL OWNER LLC, a foreign limited liability company; PYRAMID MAX MANAGEMENT LLC, a foreign limited liability company doing business as HOTEL MAX; PYRAMID MURANO MANAGEMENT LLC, a foreign limited liability company doing business as HOTEL MURANO, BITE, and LOBBY BAR; PYRAMID SEATTLE MANAGEMENT LLC, a foreign limited liability company doing business as HILTON GARDEN INN – SEATTLE DOWNTOWN; PYRAMID SEATTLE TENANT LLC, a foreign limited liability company doing business as HILTON GARDEN INN SEATTLE DOWNTOWN; KS TACOMA HOTEL, LLC, a foreign limited liability company doing business asHOTEL MURANO, BITE, and LOBBY BAR; BENCHMARK BELLEVUE LLC, a foreign limited liability company doing business as INTERCONTINENTAL BELLEVUE AT THE AVENUE; BMC – THE BENCHMARK MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; BELLEVUE LUXURY HOSPITALITY LLC, a foreign limited liability company doing business as INTERCONTINENTAL BELLEVUE AT THE AVENUE; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 24-2-25238-0 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of Washington State for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Oct. 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01927. The Complaint purports to seek relief related to Washington's Equal Pay and Opportunities Act, RCW 49.58.110, which sets out requirements for job postings. Specifically, the Complaint seeks statutory damages for alleged violations; attorney's fees, injunctive relief; and declaratory relief.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah M. Hamley, Esq. EMERY REDDY PLLC 600 Stewart St., Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.442.9106 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com The Defendants are represented by: Clarence M. Belnavis, Esq. Jeremy F. Wood, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-682-2308 Facsimile: 206-682-7908 Email: cbelnavis@fisherphillips.com jwood@fisherphillips.com RALPH LAUREN: Court Narrows Claims in Molayem Suit -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IDA MOLAYEM, MICHAEL GATHEN, and KEITH WHITE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION, RALPH LAUREN RETAIL, INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 1:24-cv-04816-JGLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. By Oct. 14, 2025, the Parties shall file a joint status update with proposals for briefing deadlines for the motion on class certification. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately pled, with particularity, UCL, CLRA, and UTPA claims. The Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to pursue injunctive relief under California and Oregan law. The Court agrees here that it would be premature to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for equitable restitution, particularly where the equitable claims overlap so substantially with the legal claims that dismissing the equitable claims would barely save any resources. Ralph Lauren outlet stores sell products marked at significant discounts. The Plaintiffs, shoppers at the outlet stores, allege that these discounts are false—namely, that the items were never offered at their original prices, and the discounts deceptively induced consumers to purchase the goods on the belief that they had scored a bargain. The Plaintiffs have brought consumer rights claims against Ralph Lauren under New York, California, and Oregon law, as well as claims for equitable relief. Ralph Lauren argues that Plaintiffs never checked their mainline stores and other product channels, where the items were offered for full price. On this and other grounds, Ralph Lauren moves to dismiss all claims. For the reasons stated herein, that motion is GRANTED with respect to the New York claims but denied with respect to the California and Oregon claims. The lawsuit was originally brought on June 25, 2024, by Plaintiff Sarah Ratra, who has since been dismissed from the case. The Plaintiffs' New York claims allege violations of Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law. In addition to the New York claims, the Plaintiffs further allege violations of California's CLRA and UCL and violations of Oregon's UTPA. Ralph designs clothing and accessories. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DJSTxf at no extra charge.[CC] RATES VIP LLC: Muhammad Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rates VIP, LLC. The case is styled as Shalamaar Muhammad, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rates VIP, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-11862 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 29, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL: Diflumeri Suit Removed to M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Nicole Diflumeri and Lisa Reingold, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RAYMOND JAMES FINANCIAL, INC., Case No. 2025CA002052 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Eighteenth District, Seminole County, Florida, to the United States District Court for Middle District of Florida on Sept. 30, 2025, and assigned Case No. 6:25-cv-01899. The complaint includes a claim arising under federal law, specifically under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Amelia Toy Rudolph, Esq. EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP 999 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2300 Atlanta, GA 30309-3996 Phone: 404.853.8797 Email: amyrudolph@eversheds-sutherland.com - and - Michael Bahar, Esq. EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP 700 Sixth Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20001-3980 Phone: 202.383.0882 Email: michaelbahar@eversheds-sutherland.com REMINGTON LODGING: Rivera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC. The case is styled as Fatima Lozano Rivera, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, Case No. 25CV146208 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Sept. 29, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC -- https://www.remingtonhospitality.com/ -- operates as a hotel management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1450 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: (213) 985-1150 Fax: (213) 985-2155 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com REPUBLIC SERVICES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Budget Suit Due Dec. 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BUDGET INNS OF PENSACOLA INC, v. REPUBLIC SERVICES INC and ALLIED WASTE SERVICES OF NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00540-MCR-ZCB (N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge M. Casey Rodgers entered an order as follows: 1. The Defendants' motion for leave to allow production of supplemental contract samples is denied. 2. Class certification briefing is due as follows: a. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification and the Defendants' Daubert and dispositive motions, if any, are due by Dec. 1, 2025. b. The Defendants' response to the motion for class certification, and the Plaintiffs responses to Daubert and dispositive motions, if any, are due by Dec. 31, 2025. c. Replies, if any, are due by Jan 14, 2026. The Court cannot find that RSI acted with diligence. The Parties agreed to the sampling protocol in August 2023; the Florida class member customers were identified in Kilbourne’s initial report dated November 15, 2023; and all underlying data that Kilbourne relied on was produced by December 15, 2023. Any problem with the agreed contract sampling protocol should have been identified and raised within the discovery period that expired nearly two years ago now—or at the very latest, within a reasonable time thereafter, and in any event, sometime before the original class certification briefing in March 2024. Neither the filing of the amended pleading in this Court nor the decision to allow supplemental expert damage calculations provides a new basis for altering the previously agreed contract sampling protocol, and RSI has been given an opportunity to depose Kilbourne on the supplemental report. Also, none of the exhibits that RSI provided in support of this motion, consisting of emails dating from 2022 through 2023, supports a finding that RSI exercised diligence in seeking additional contract sampling. Absent a finding of diligence, the good cause inquiry is at an end. Republic provides non-hazardous solid waste collection, transfer, and disposal services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iAGZUu at no extra charge.[CC] REVIVE & CO: O'Donnell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- William O'Donnell, and others similarly situated v. REVIVE & CO, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-12778 (D. Mass., Sept. 26, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to make its website, www.reviveandco.com (the "Website") accessible to legally blind individuals, which violates the effective communication and equal access requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant fails to communicate effectively with Plaintiff because its digital properties are not properly formatted to allow legally blind users such as Plaintiff to access its digital content. Accordingly, legally blind customers such as Plaintiff are deprived from accessing information about Defendant's products and using its online services, all of which are readily available to sighted customers. The Plaintiff is an advocate of the rights of similarly situated disabled persons and is a "tester" for the purpose of asserting his civil rights and monitoring, ensuring, and determining whether places of public accommodation and their websites are in compliance with the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is legally blind and is therefore a member of a protected class under the ADA. The Defendant specializes in restaurant services, offering the ability to explore a menu of breakfast wraps and sandwiches, fresh salads and grain bowls, blended smoothie bowls, protein smoothies, and house-made juices, as well as services such as online ordering, catering, and private events.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 716-281-5496 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law REYES COCA-COLA BOTTLING: Alvarez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reyes Coca-Cola Bottling, L.L.C. The case is styled as Frederick Alvarez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Reyes Coca-Cola Bottling, L.L.C., Case No. 25STCV28282 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Reyes Coca-Cola Bottling --- https://reyescocacola.com/ -- is a proud west coast and midwest bottler and distributor of Coca-Cola brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Feb. 15, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANAYA WASHINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. REYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02327-ALC-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky entered an initial case management conference order: In light of the mediation scheduled for January 12, 2026, the parties shall provide a joint update on the status but not the substance of their settlement efforts by January 14, 2026. If the mediation is unsuccessful, Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be due by Feb. 15, 2026. The deadline for discovery regarding the Plaintiffs' experts shall be March 31, 2026. The deadline for the Defendant's opposition shall be April 15, 2026. The deadline for discovery regarding the Defendant's experts shall be May 15, 2026 The deadline for the Plaintiffs' reply shall be June 1, 2026. Reynolds provides packaging products. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TjAxrr at no extra charge.[CC] RHEEM MANUFACTURING: Court Grants Word Limit Extension in "West" ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Vanessa West, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rheem Manufacturing Company and Melet Plastics, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-09686-CAS-MAA (C.D. Cal.), Judge Christina A. Snyder of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted an extension for word limit. The Court reviewed the stipulation between Plaintiff Vanessa West and Defendants Rheem Manufacturing Company and Melet Plastics, Inc. to extend the word limit for Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval. The Court ordered that Plaintiff shall have 3,700 additional words, or a total of 10,700 words, for her memorandum of points and authorities in support of Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RPETD3 from PacerMonitor.com ROSENDIN ELECTRIC: Burns Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Brandon Burns, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROSENDIN ELECTRIC, INC., Case No. BCV-25-102524 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Oct. 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01303-JLT-CDB. On July 8, 2025, the Plaintiff submitted a notice to California's Labor and Workforce Development Agency alleging various violations of California's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), California Labor Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian C. Sinclair, Esq. Kenneth J. Zielinski, Esq. RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP 18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 714-641-5100 Facsimile: 714-546-9035 Email: bsinclair@rutan.com kzielinski@rutan.com - and - Ryan H. Crosner, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS 400 So. Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-457-5869 Email: ryan.crosner@ogletree.com ROUSH FENWAY: Cowley Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information --------------------------------------------------------------- Wyatt Cowley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROUSH FENWAY KESELOWSKI RACING, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00891 (M.D.N.C., Oct. 1, 2025), is brought 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 May 14, 2025, Defendant detected unauthorized activity on its network. In response, Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. The Defendant learned that Private Information contained on its network was accessed by the unauthorized third-party. On September 12, 2025--four months after Defendant was made aware of the Data Breach--Defendant began sending notice letters ("Notice") to impacted individuals. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Defendant, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant. The Defendant is a professional racing team.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean S. Martin, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX, LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 559-4908 Fax: (813) 223-5402 Email: Jeanmartin@forthepeople.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com RYAN RD COMMONS: Malsack Sues Over Physical Barriers ---------------------------------------------------- Darrin Malsack, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. RYAN RD COMMONS LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01489 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 28, 2025), is brought based upon Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access the property and violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"). The Plaintiff has visited the Property once before as a customer and advocate for the disabled. The Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of the revisit is to be a return customer of Kabab House, to be a new customer of Dunkin, to determine if and when the Property is made accessible and to substantiate already existing standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes. The Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Property to purchase and/or receive food and services as a return customer as well as for Advocacy Purposes but does not intend to re-expose himself to the ongoing barriers to access and engage in a futile gesture of visiting the public accommodation known to Plaintiff to have numerous continuing barriers to access, as such, Plaintiff is currently deterred from returning to the Property until the barriers to access are removed, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. RYAN RD COMMONS LLC is a domestic limited liability company that transacts business in the State of Wisconsin and within this judicial district.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Phone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com S & H PROPERTY: McCauley Sues Over Unlawful Physical Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------- Maryanne McCauley, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. S & H PROPERTY HOLDINGS, L.L.C. and OMNI HOLDINGS, L.P., Case No. 4:25-cv-01465 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 27, 2025), is brought based upon Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access and violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"). The Plaintiff often travels to Wentzville to go antique shopping and the Property in question is nearby. The Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of the revisit is to be a return customer to Vans Hallmark Shop, to determine if and when the Property is made accessible and to substantiate already existing standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes. The Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Property to purchase food and/or bowl as a return customer as well as for Advocacy Purposes but does not intend to re-expose herself to the ongoing barriers to access and engage in a futile gesture of visiting the public accommodation known to Plaintiff to have numerous and continuing barriers to access, as such, Plaintiff is deterred from returning to the Property as a customer until the barriers to access identified in this Complaint are removed, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. S & H PROPERTY HOLDINGS, L.L.C. is a domestic limited liability corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Phone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com SALESFORCE INC: Lamarre Sues Over Failure to Secure PII ------------------------------------------------------- Diane Lamarre, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SALESFORCE, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-07371-JSC (N.D. Cal., Sept. 2, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to adequately secure and safeguard her and at least one million other individuals' personally identifying information ("PII") including names, addresses, phone numbers, birth dates, and Tax IDs, alongside professional info like licenses, firm affiliations, product approvals, and marketing classifications. The Data Breach reportedly affected approximately one million Allianz Life customers. Salesforce's Data Breach affects over 700 organizations, and therefore the number of affected individuals across all of Salesforce's clients is much larger than one million. The Data Breach was directly and proximately caused by Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and industry-standard data security practices necessary to protect its systems from a foreseeable and preventable cyberattack. Through this wrongful conduct, the sensitive PII of millions of individuals is now in the hands of cybercriminals, who target this sensitive data for its value to identity thieves. Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and impending risk of fraud, identity theft, and similar forms of criminal mischief--risks which may last the rest of their lives. Consequently, Plaintiff and Class Members must devote substantially more time, money, and energy to protect themselves, to the extent possible, from these crimes. Moreover, Plaintiff and Class Members have lost the inherent value of their private data. Despite knowing that the Data Breach occurred in July 2025, and many of its other spokes have faced data breaches involving Salesforce's cloud-based services, Defendant has not publicly disclosed any information regarding its role in these data breaches, exacerbating the damages and risks to Class Members, and in violation of various state data breach notification statutes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim and received a notification of the Data Breach from Defendant on August 1, 2025. Salesforce is a cloud-based software company providing its services to various corporate clients throughout the country in sales, marketing automation, e-commerce, analytics, artificial intelligence, and application development.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Amber L. Schubert, Esq. Sonum Dixit, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St., Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Phone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 Email: rschubert@sjk.law aschubert@sjk.law sdixit@sjk.law SALESFORCE INC: Moran Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII ------------------------------------------------------------------- Alexis Moran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SALESFORCE, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-07374-JSC (N.D. Cal., Sept. 2, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to adequately secure and safeguard his and tens of thousands of other individuals' personally identifying information ("PII") including names, contact information, addresses, dates of birth, passports and/or government identification numbers. The Data Breach reportedly affected 419,000 customers in South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Sweden. The number of individuals affected in the United States has not been publicly disclosed. The Data Breach was directly and proximately caused by Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and industry-standard data security practices necessary to protect its systems from a foreseeable and preventable cyberattack. Through this wrongful conduct, the sensitive PII of millions of individuals is now in the hands of cybercriminals, who target this sensitive data for its value to identity thieves. Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and impending risk of fraud, identity theft, and similar forms of criminal mischief--risks which may last the rest of their lives. Consequently, Plaintiff and Class Members must devote substantially more time, money, and energy to protect themselves, to the extent possible, from these crimes. Moreover, Plaintiff and Class Members have lost the inherent value of their private data. Despite knowing that the Data Breach occurred in July 2025, and many of its other spokes have faced data breaches involving Salesforce's cloud-based services, Defendant has not publicly disclosed any information regarding its role in these data breaches, exacerbating the damages and risks to Class Members, and in violation of various state data breach notification statutes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim and received a notification of the Data Breach from Defendant on August 1, 2025. Salesforce is a cloud-based software company providing its services to various corporate clients throughout the country in sales, marketing automation, e-commerce, analytics, artificial intelligence, and application development.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Amber L. Schubert, Esq. Sonum Dixit, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St., Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Phone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 Email: rschubert@sjk.law aschubert@sjk.law sdixit@sjk.law SAUCONY INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Saucony, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-03779 (D. Minn., Sept. 26, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.saucony.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers footwear, clothing, and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, running shoes, racing shoes, hiking shoes, walking shoes, tops, bottoms, jackets, and more.[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 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com SECURITAS CRITICAL: Pryor Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Robert Pryor, on behalf of the general public as private attorney general v. SECURITAS CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV017620 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Oct. 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02862-JDP. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges a single cause of action for Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code Section 2699(f) of the Private Attorneys' General Act ("PAGA") based on violation of Labor Codes.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Frank A. Magnanimo, Esq. Jasmine R. Kiaei, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 650 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 Email: fmagnanimo@fisherphillips.com jkiaei@fisherphillips.com SECURITY ENFORCEMENT: Quintanar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Security Enforcement Group, Inc. The case is styled as Elvis Javier Quintanar, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Security Enforcement Group, Inc., Case No. 25STCV29293 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kings Cty., Oct. 6, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Security Enforcement Group provides Event Security & Bouncer Services, Security and Body Guard Services services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Riley Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against SelectQuote Insurance Services, Inc. The case is styled as Apryl Riley, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. SelectQuote Insurance Services, Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-02733 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 7, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. SelectQuote -- https://www.selectquote.com/ -- is a direct-to-consumer distribution platform for selling insurance policies and healthcare services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com SHAKERAG FARMS: Does File Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shakerag Farms Homeowners Association, Inc. The case is styled as John Does 1-30, as individuals and on behalf of all other similarly situated members of Shakerag Farms Homeowners Association, Inc. and derivatively on behalf of the Shakerag Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Shakerag Farms Homeowners Association, Inc., Julie Sansalone, Christina Gagliano, Sanny Shah, Saad Khan, in their capacity as officers of Board of Directors Sixes Management Group LLC, John Does 1-20, Case No. 25CV-1823-1 (Ga. Super. Ct., Forsyth Cty., Oct. 7, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Injunction / Temporary Restraining Order. Shakerag Farms -- https://shakeragfarms.net/ -- is a covenant controlled community in Forsyth County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: KaRon L Grimes, Esq. THE GRIMES LAW FIRM 10 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 130 Atlanta, GA 30328 SHEHEEN HANCOCK & GODWIN: Rogers Files Suit in D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sheheen Hancock & Godwin, LLP. The case is styled as Jason Rogers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sheheen Hancock & Godwin, LLP, Case No. 3:25-cv-12873-JFA (D.S.C., Oct. 8, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Sheheen Hancock & Godwin, LLP -- https://www.shgcpa.com/ -- is an accounting firm based in South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Parkway, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Phone: (405) 389-4989 Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com - and - Neil Patrick Williams, Esq. SIRI AND GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (929) 474-6448 Email: nwilliams@sirillp.com SHEHEEN HANCOCK: Hamilton Sues Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------- Rhonda Hamilton, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SHEHEEN HANCOCK & GODWIN, LLP, Case No. 3:25-cv-12769-SAL (D.S.C., Sept. 30, 2025), is brought as a result of the Defendants failure to properly use up-to-date security practices to prevent the Data Breach. On April 8, 2025, SHG, a South Carolina accounting firm, discovered it had lost control over its computer network and the highly sensitive personal information stored on its computer network in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals ("Data Breach"). Upon information and belief, the Data Breach has impacted thousands of current and former customers. Following an internal investigation, Defendant learned cybercriminals had gained unauthorized access to customers' personally identifiable information ("PII"), including but not limited to names, Social Security numbers and health insurance information. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and securing the PII of Plaintiff, and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII--rendering it an easy target for cybercriminals. The Defendant's failure to timely report the Data Breach made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their PII. The Defendant knew or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of PII misuse. In failing to adequately protect its customers' information, adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendant violated state law and harmed an unknown number of its current and former customers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a customer of Defendant and Data Breach victim. SHG touts that it is "committed to providing quality services and attention to our clients at the level that each specifies, from tax preparation and bookkeeping, to business consulting and comprehensive planning."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karolan Ohanesian, Esq. Glenn Ohanesian, Esq. OHANESIAN LAW FIRM P.O. Box 2433 Myrtle Beach, SC 29578 Phone: 843-626-7193 Fax: 843-492-5164 Email: OhanesianLawFirm@cs.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com SHEPHERDS LANE: Farias Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Farias, individually and on behalf of all otherpersons similarly situated v. Shepherds Lane Commons LLC, Morristown Lofts Development LLC, and Giuseppe A. Gorga, a/k/a Joe Gorga, Case No. 2:25-cv-16118 (D.N.J., Sept. 30, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), allege that he is entitled to recover from Defendants, jointly and severally: unpaid overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek for which he did not receive the statutory required overtime premium pay; and liquidated damages equal to the amount of unpaid wages, as provided by the FLSA, because the Defendants' various unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices were willful and lacked a good faith basis. The Defendants' action alleged herein are/were willful because Defendants are aware of, and by law are charged with the knowledge that under the FLSA and NJWHL, they are required to pay employees performing non-exempt duties, including the Plaintiff and the other FLSA Collective Action Members, overtime pay at a one-and-one-half the regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per work week, as evidenced by training materials, handbook, memos, or correspondence that discuss the FLSA and NJWHL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants. Shepherds Lane Commons LLC is a New Jersey limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Samuel, Esq. THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM 1441 Broadway, Suite 6085 New York, New York 10018 Phone: (212) 563-9884 Email: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com - and - Reena Forst, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF REENA FORST 345 Union Street Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 Phone: (201) 568-5689 Fax: (201) 568-4479 Email: rforst@rflawfirm.com SHERATON OPERATING: Gerl Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Barbara Gerl, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SHERATON OPERATING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV09923 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Sept. 22, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-09525-DMG-MAA. On April 4, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a complaint asserting claims under the California Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.) and California False Advertising Law (Business & Professions Code Section 17500, et seq.), as well as common law claims of fraud/intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment/restitution, and breach of contract.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alex Terepka, Esq. WATSTEIN TEREPKA LLP 515 South Flower Street, 19th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 839-3317 Email alex@wtlaw.com SHIFTSTER LLC: Ealey Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI ------------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Ealey, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SHIFTSTER, LLC d/b/a ESHYFT, Case No. 3:25-cv-15169 (D.N.J., Sept. 2, 2025), is brought arising from its failure to safeguard certain Personally Identifying Information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively "Private Information") of thousands of its current and former employees and/or consumers, resulting in Defendant 's network systems being unauthorizedly accessed. Cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's Private Information. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's Private Information in a vulnerable position--rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. On August 8, 202S--almost five months after the Data Breach began-- ESHYFT finally began notifying Class Members about the Data Breach ("Breach Notice"). The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself, and all others harmed by Defendant's misconduct. The exposure of one's Private Information to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot be unrung. Before this data breach, Defendant's current and former employees' and/or consumers' Private Information was exactly that--private. Not anymore. Now, their Private Information is forever exposed and unsecure, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim. Shifter, LLC is the "owner of ESHYFT, a technology platform and mobile app that connects nurses (CNAs, LPNS, and RNs) with long-term care facilities for per diem nursing shifts."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKV, P.C. 8000 Sagemore Drive, Suite 8303 Marlton, NJ 08053 Phone: (215) 575-3895 Email: phoward@smbb.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1 IOO Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com SHINHAN BANK AMERICA: Kim-Yoo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shinhan Bank America. The case is styled as Youngmee Kim-Yoo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Shinhan Bank America, Case No. 25STCV29266 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 3, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Shinhan Bank -- https://online.shbamerica.com/ -- is a South-Korean bank headquartered in Seoul.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Molly Ann DeSario, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd., Ste. 300 Los Angeles, CA 90024-4937 Phone: 310-438-5555 Fax: 310-300-1705 Email: mdesario@tomorrowlaw.com SIDEPRIZE LLC: Lee Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Peter Lee, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SIDEPRIZE, LLC d/b/a PRIZEPICKS, and DOES 1-20, Case No. CGC-25-629586 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Oct. 6, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-08532. The Franks Action seeks equitable relief and asserts claims against PrizePicks for: violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher Frost, Esq. Nicholas Lauber, Esq. Kristopher Rossfeld, Esq. FROST LLP 10960 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: (424) 254-0441 Facsimile: (424) 600-8504 Email: chris@frostllp.com nick@frostllp.com krossfeld@frostllp.com - and - David Marroso, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035 Phone: (310) 553-6700 Facsimile: (310) 246-6779 Email: dmarroso@omm.com - and - Randall W. Edwards, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3823 Phone: (415) 984-8700 Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 Email: redwards@omm.com SKYWEST AIRLINES: Petelo Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Israel Petelo, individually on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC.; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01503943-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Orange, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Sept. 25, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-02265-DOC-DFM. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims for: unpaid overtime, failure to pay all regular wages, unpaid minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, waiting time penalties, failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements, failure to pay commission wages, and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Esq. JONES DAY 555 South Flower Street Fiftieth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071.2452 Phone: +1.213.489.3939 Facsimile: +1.213.243.2539 Email: asommerfeld@jonesday.com - and - Patricia T. Stambelos, Esq. STAMBELOS LAW OFFICE 543 Country Club Drive, Suite B209 Simi Valley, CA 93065 Phone: +1.805.578.3474 Facsimile: +1.805.994.0199 Email: patricia@patriciastambelos.com SO CAL RAMP: Corona Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------ Jesse Corona, individually and for others similarly situated v. SO CAL RAMP SERVICES, LLC, INTER-RAIL GROUP, INC., INTER-RAIL MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03229-SAG (D. Md., Sept. 29, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendants in violation the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the California Labor Code. Like the other Railway Workers, the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 8 hours in a workday and 40 hours in a week. But Inter-Rail did not pay the Plaintiff and the other Railway Workers for all overtime hours worked at the correct overtime rates of pay. Instead, Inter-Rail excluded various forms of compensation, including nondiscretionary bonuses and shift differential pay, from the Plaintiff's and the other Railway Workers' regular rates of pay (Inter-Rail's "Regular Rate Policy"). the Plaintiff and the other Railway Workers were thus not paid premium overtime pay at the correct rates of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Inter-Rail as a railcar conductor and engineer at Inter-Rail's facility in Mira Loma, California. Inter-Rail provides railway terminal services to railroads and car manufacturers throughout the united states, including in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Suvita Melehy, Esq. MELEHY & ASSOCIATES LLC 8403 Colesville Road, Suite 610 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Phone: (301) 587-6364 Fax: (301) 587-6308 Email: smelehy@melehylaw.com SOM JAI NUK: Faces Rocete Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ JAVIER PORFIRIO ROCETE, and AGUSTIN ROSALES SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SOM JAI NUK INC. (D/B/A CHAROEN KRUNG THAI), and SIRIKORN LIKITVANICHKUL, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08038 (S.D.N.Y., September 29, 2025) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the New York Labor Law and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to pay spread of hours exceeded 10 hours, failure to provide written wage notices, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse costs and expenses for purchasing and maintaining equipment, and engagement in unlawful deductions. The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants who were employed as dishwashers and ostensibly as delivery workers. Som Jai Nuk Inc. owns, operates, and controls a Thai restaurant located in New York under the name "Charoen Krung Thai." [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CROSSROADS: Suit Filed in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southern California Crossroads. The case is styled as Dora Lee Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Southern California Crossroads, Case No. 25NWCV03571 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 7, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Southern California Crossroads -- https://www.socalcrossroads.org/ -- is a non-profit organization in Lynwood, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Ginzburg, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Rd., Ste. 1084 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (818) 914-3433 Fax: (818) 914-3433 Email: dan@frontierlawcenter.com SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SPECIALTY: Lara Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Juan Lara, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SPECIALTY CARE, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV21656 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Oct. 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02610. To the extent that Plaintiff's derivate claims, such as his Sixth Cause of Action for Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements, Seventh Cause of Action for Failure to Pay All Wages Due Upon Separation of Employment, and Eighth Cause of Action for Violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq., are premised on SoCal Care's alleged failure to pay overtime wages or provide meal periods, these derivative claims are similarly pre-empted.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Paul G. Sherman, Esq. Nicholas L. Ramirez, Esq. KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2225 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 493-3980 Email: psherman@kcozlaw.com nramirez@kcozlaw.com SOUTHWEST CONCRETE: Aceves Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southwest Concrete Paving Co. The case is styled as Phillipe Aceves, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Southwest Concrete Paving Co., Case No. 25CU0436 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kings Cty., Oct. 6, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment for Civil Unlimited." Southwest Concrete Paving Co. -- https://www.swcp.us/ -- specializes in heavy civil and military airfield construction, emphasizing safety and quality.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com STEPS CLOTHING: Castro Sues Over Discriminative Website ------------------------------------------------------- Arantza Castro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN SOCIAL, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation D/B/A AMERICAN SOCIAL, Case No. 1:25-cv-24616-PCH (S.D. Fla., Oct. 7, 2025), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), as a result of the Defendant's discriminative website. The Defendant was and still is an organization owning and operating the website located at https://americansocialbar.com/. Since the website is open through the internet to the public as an extension of the retail stores, by this nexus the website is an intangible service, privilege and advantage of Defendant's brick and mortar locations, the Defendant has subjected itself and the associated website it created and maintains to the requirements of the ADA. The website also services Defendant's physical stores by providing information on its brand and other information that Defendant is interested in communicating to its customers about its physical locations. Although the Website appeared to have an "accessibility" statement displayed and an "accessibility" widget/plugin added, the "accessibility" statement and widget/plugin, when tested, still could not be effectively accessed by, and continued to be a barrier to, blind and visually disabled persons, including Plaintiff as a completely blind person. Plaintiff, although she attempted to access the statement, thus, was unable to receive any meaningful or prompt assistance through the "accessibility" statement and the widget/plugin to enable her to quickly, fully, and effectively navigate the Website, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses the computer regularly, but due to her visual disability, Plaintiff cannot use her computer without the assistance of appropriate and available auxiliary aids, screen reader software, and other technology and assistance. AMERICAN SOCIAL, is a company that sells salads, burgers, sandwiches, steak, chicken, salmon, sides, dessert, and drinks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diego German Mendez, Esq. MENDEZ LAW OFFICES, PLLC P.O. BOX 228630 Miami, FL 33172 Phone: 305.264.9090 Facsimile: 1-305.809.8474 Email: info@mendezlawoffices.com - and - Richard J. Adams, Esq. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 6500 Cowpen Road, Suite 101 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Phone: 786-290-1963 Facsimile: 305-824-3868 Email: radamslaw7@gmail.com STERLING STEEL: Mager Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Darryl L. Mager, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. STERLING STEEL COMPANY, LLC, a limited liability company, Case No. 1:25-cv-11845 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 29, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff's most recent base hourly rate of pay was $10.18. In addition to the base rate of pay, Defendant incorporated various types of routine and non-discretionary pay into its payment structure. For example, Defendant promised its hourly employees bonuses, incentive pay, and other forms of remuneration. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, he qualified for bonuses. Throughout Plaintiff's employment he also received incentive pay for working certain specific shifts and performing certain job duties. As non-exempt employees, Defendant's hourly employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from June 11, 2024, through October 3, 2024. Sterling Steel Company, LLC was started in 2002 and operates a manufacturing facility in Sterling, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Phone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 824-3828 Email: jm@melmedlaw.com mh@melmedlaw.com STRADA SERVICES: Gamez Suit Removed to M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Valentin Gamez, and all others similarly situated v. STRADA SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2025-CA-002042 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Seminole County, Florida, to the United States District Court for Middle District of Florida on Sept. 30, 2025, and assigned Case No. 6:25-cv-01882. The Plaintiff's Complaint purports to set forth one count against Defendant for alleged violation of the overtime provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Paul L. Sutherland, Esq. WILSON MCCOY, P.A. 932 N. Maitland Ave Maitland, FL 32751 Phone: (407) 803-5400 Facsimile: (407) 803-4617 Email: psutherland@wilsonmccoylaw.com pleadings@wilsonmccoylaw.com rlopez@wilsonmccoylaw.com STURGIS HOSPITAL: Marchand Balks at Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA MARCHAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STURGIS HOSPITAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01162 (W.D. Mich., September 29, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information who were impacted in a data breach that the Defendant experienced in December 2024. The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. According to the complaint, the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the private information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was exposed to criminals. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment; breach of implied contract; and breach of confidence. Sturgis Hospital, Inc. is a regional healthcare provider offering a variety of medical services to the southwestern Michigan community.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Pollack, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 250 Monrow NW, Suite 400 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Telephone: (616) 208-5222 E-mail: christopher.pollack@forthepeople.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Marchandhall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com SUSHI ON THE ROAD: Herrera Sues Over Disability Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Herrera, on behalf of others similarly situated v. SUSHI ON THE ROAD, INC, d/b/a SUSHI RUNNER, a Florida for-profit corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-24440-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Sept. 26, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://sushirunner.com (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the locations of Defendant's physical restaurants. The Website also sells to the public its food and beverage products and thus the Website acts as a critical point of sale and ordering for Defendant's food and beverage products made in and also available to order and purchase in, from, and through Defendant's physical restaurants. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. These access barriers, one or more of which were experienced by Plaintiff, are severe and pervasive and, as confirmed by Plaintiff's expert, include the following (with reference to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been a blind and visually disabled person who has been medically diagnosed with complete blindness as a result of trauma to both eyes. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls two restaurants selling food and beverage products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodenck V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com SWEET BAY PROPERTIES: Powell Files Suit in Fla. Dist. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sweet Bay Properties, LLC. The case is styled as Zoyna Reyna Weed Powell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Sweet Bay Properties, LLC, Case No. 2025 CA 001527 (Fla. Dist. Ct., Escambia Cty., Oct. 8, 2025). The case type is stated as "Business Transactions." Sweet Bay Properties -- https://www.sweetbaypropertiesllc.com/ -- is a multi-family housing developer that focuses on mid-sized emerging markets and communities in the US.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Peterson, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK 400 N Ashley Dr., Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: +1 352-753-8600 TAZO TEA COMPANY: Casucci Sues Over Deceptive Business Practice --------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Casucci, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TAZO TEA COMPANY and LIPTON TEAS AND INFUSIONS B.V., Case No. 1:25-cv-07284-LAK (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2025), is brought for a deceptive and otherwise improper business practice that Defendants engage in with respect to the packaging of Tazo's bottled tea Products, in violation of New York Gen. Bus. Law (New York's statute on deceptive acts or practices) and Gen. Bus. Law. Tazo bottled tea is a beverage Product sold in a variety of flavors. One of Tazo's bottled tea Products is an "Organic Iced Green Tea" which is then described as "green tea infused with lemongrass, spearmint & a touch of sweetness." This Product description, however, is in fact a bold-faced lie. The Plaintiff and Class members viewed Defendants' misleading Product packaging, reasonably relied in substantial part on the representations, and were thereby deceived in deciding to purchase the Products for a premium price. The Plaintiff brings this proposed consumer class action on behalf of himself and all other persons nationwide, who, from the applicable limitations period up to and including the present (the "Class Period"), purchased for consumption and not resale Tazo's bottled tea Products. During the Class Period, Defendants manufactured, marketed, and sold the Products throughout the United States. Defendants purposefully sold the Products with an intent to facilitate unfair competition and create consumer confusion, through their false advertising and labelling, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has purchased the Products for personal consumption in New York County. Tazo is a tea and herbal tea distributor based in Kent, Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Chen, Esq. Richard M. Hendler, Esq. DGW KRAMER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10111 Email: jchen@dgwllp.com hendler@hendlerlawfirm.com TEA DATING ADVICE: Karam Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Gabrielle Karam, Samantha Stevens, Meredith Karam, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Tea Dating Advice, Inc., Case No. 25-07671 I-5 was transferred from the Civil District Court, Orleans Parish, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on Sept. 2, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-07634-JGK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Tea Dating Advice, Inc. -- https://www.teaforwomen.com/ -- is a company that developed the "Tea" mobile app, which provides women with a platform to anonymously share and access dating advice, user reviews, and safety tools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gladstone N. Jones, III, Esq. Kevin Earl Huddell, Esq. Lynn E. Swanson, Esq. Rosa E. Acheson, Esq. Thomas Dixon, Esq. JONES, SWANSON, HUDDELL & GARRISON, LLC (NEW ORLEANS) Pan American Life Center 601 Poydras St., Suite 2655 New Orleans, LA 70130-6004 Phone: (504) 523-2500 Email: gjones@jonesswanson.com khuddell@jonesswanson.com lswanson@jonesswanson.com racheson@jonesswanson.com tdixon@jonesswanson.com - and - James M. Garner, Esq. Kaylyn Blosser Handy, Esq. Stuart Daniel Kottle, Esq. SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN & HILBERT, LLC 909 Poydras Street, Ste. 28th Floor New Orleans, LA 70112 Phone: (504) 299-2100 Email: jgarner@shergarner.com khandy@shergarner.com skottle@shergarner.com TEA DATING ADVICE: Perry Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Rodneka Perry, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TEA DATING ADVICE, INC., Case No. 2025CH08668 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois on Oct. 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-12045. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") by scanning a user's facial geometry to verify the user's identity. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant "collected, captured, obtained, used, and stored their biometric identifiers and biometric information, in the form of scans of facial geometry" from uploaded "selfies," and, allegedly in violation of BIPA, failed to "obtain proper written informed consent as required by BIPA to collect such biometrics," "publish a written, publicly available policy identifying retention schedules and guidelines for permanently destroying Tea App users' biometric data," to inform Plaintiff and the Class "in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their biometric identifiers and/or biometric information were being captured, collected, stored and used," "obtain a written release," and obtain consent" to disclose, redisclose, or otherwise or disseminate" biometrics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Catherine Mitchell Duffy, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 222 W Adams St, Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com cmitchell@stephanzouras.com The Defendants are represented by: Joel C. Griswold, Esq. Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq. Katharine H. Walton, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP One North Wacker Drive, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 416-6200 Email: jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com kwalton@bakerlaw.com TEA DATING ADVICE: Valdez Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jasmine Valdez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TEA DATING ADVICE, INC., Case No. 2025CH09023 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois on Oct. 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-12050. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") by scanning a user's facial geometry to verify the user's identity. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant "collected, captured, obtained, used, and stored their biometric identifiers and biometric information, in the form of scans of facial geometry" from uploaded "selfies," and, allegedly in violation of BIPA, failed to "obtain proper written informed consent as required by BIPA to collect such biometrics," "publish a written, publicly available policy identifying retention schedules and guidelines for permanently destroying Tea App users' biometric data," to inform Plaintiff and the Class "in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their biometric identifiers and/or biometric information were being captured, collected, stored and used," "obtain a written release," and obtain consent" to disclose, redisclose, or otherwise or disseminate" biometrics.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Joel C. Griswold, Esq. Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq. Katharine H. Walton, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP One North Wacker Drive, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 416-6200 Email: jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com kwalton@bakerlaw.com TEKNI-PLEX INC: Beck Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Beck, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TEKNI-PLEX, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-05722 (E.D. Pa., Oct. 3, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about its current and former employees. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems—thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former employees' PII. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim. The Defendant is a "global leader in the Healthcare and Consumer Products markets" and manufactures and sells medical devices and materials for healthcare providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com TEKNI-PLEX INC: Fails to Properly Secure Personal Info, Keene Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DONALD KEENE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEKNI-PLEX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-05584 (E.D. Pa., September 29, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and that was impacted in a cyber incident. The Plaintiff's claims arise 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 November 18, 2024, the Defendant learned of unusual activity within its network. In response, Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the data breach. According to the complaint, the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the private information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the private information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. The Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant and an alleged data breach victim. Tekni-Plex, Inc. manufactures and sells products for healthcare providers across the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Rd., Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com TENNESSEE GAS: Bid to Oppose Class Cert. Extended ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADISH JOHNSON CO., LIMITED individually and as representative of all those similarly situated, V. TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC ET AL. Case No. 2:23-cv-07363-CJB-EJD (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Carl Barbier entered an order granting the unopposed motion to continue deadline for opposition to motion for class certification. Tennessee provides gas transportation and storage services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Di2XwP at no extra charge.[CC] TERRASOUL SUPERFOODS: Argueta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Terrasoul Superfoods, LLC. The case is styled as Jessica Argueta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terrasoul Superfoods, LLC, Case No. 25STCV29214 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 6, 2025). The case type is stated as "Common Law Fraud." Terrasoul Superfoods -- https://www.terrasoul.com/ -- specializes in providing high-quality organic superfoods, including nuts, seeds, dried fruits, and powdered supplements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com TG ADMINISTRATION: McMullen Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jennifer McMullen, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. TG ADMINISTRATION, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 25CV471536 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Oct. 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-08440. The Plaintiff brings the following causes of action on behalf of herself and the putative class members: unpaid minimum wages; unpaid overtime; failure to provide one day's rest in seven, meal break violations; rest break violations; wages not timely paid during employment; statement violations; untimely final wages; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses, all in violations of Cal. Business & Professions Code and violations of Cal. Labor Codes.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Patricia A. Matias, Esq. Alis M. Moon, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 200 Spectrum Center Drive. Sujte 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 885-1360 Email: Patricia.Matias@jacksonlewis.com Alis.Moon@jacksonlewis.com - and - Evan M. McBride, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 341-0404 Email: Evan.McBride@jacksonlewis.com THRILLZZ INC: Rahmani Files Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thrillzz Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jared Rahmani, Gurgen Galstyan, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Thrillzz Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 3:25-cv-02548-RBM-KSC (S.D. Cal., Sept. 26, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Thrillzz Inc. -- https://thrillzz.com/ -- is a free sweepstakes sportsbook app for NFL, NBA, Soccer & more.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (954) 647-1866 Email: mweekes@milberg.com TIM WALZ: McGuire Files Suit in D. Minnesota -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tim Walz, et al. The case is styled as David J. McGuire, and all others similarly situated v. Tim Walz, Governor, in their individual capacity and in their official capacity; Terry Kniesel Corey Vargason, Tammy Sheldon, Nichole Keilty, Jana Brister-Korby, Ross Freeman, Shelby Halvorson, "JOHN DOE" – Green, Jack "DOE", Dean Ringo, Rebecca "DOE", Luke Chalberg, Kristy Gilpin, Tanya Effler, Doug "DOE", Deandra Christianson, Kelly McKnight, Jaime LaGraves, Kathleen Glassman, Brittany King, Bruce Beaman, Melissa Daniels, Shireen Gandhi, Marshall Smith, all in their individual capacity and in their official capacity; Case No. 0:25-cv-03835-ECT-JFD (D. Minn., Oct. 2, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Civil Rights Act. Timothy James Walz is an American politician, former educator, and Army National Guard veteran serving since 2019 as the 41st governor of Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. TIMOTHY WISEMAN: Ford Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Laws Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Kent Ford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TIMOTHY WISEMAN, individually; WISEMAN MINISTRIES INC., WISEMAN TRANSPORT LLC, and JOHN DOES 1–10, Case No. 2:25-cv-00982-JRG (E.D. Tex., Sept. 30, 2025), is brought to remedy Defendants' systemic violations of federal and Texas wage-and-hour laws, unlawful confiscation of benefits, misrepresentations regarding program services, and retaliation against participants who questioned or opposed these practices. Program participants, like Plaintiff, routinely work 40 or more hours per week at commercial facilities, including a farm and sawmill. Despite this full-time labor, participants receive only nominal "points" or credits instead of being paid lawful wages for their work. Participants enrolled in other Wiseman programs are also assigned to staff the Gifts of Grace Resale Stores in Longview, Texas and the Soapy King car wash in Henderson, Texas, both businesses tied to the Defendant, where they are subjected to the same unlawful practices, including uncompensated labor and the confiscation of tips, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was ordered by a Harrison County court to participate in and complete the Isaiah 58 Farms recovery program as a condition of probation. Timothy Wiseman, is a Texas resident who owns and operates Wiseman Ministries, Inc., Wiseman Transport, LLC, and other related entities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh B. Maness, Esq. MANESS LAW FIRM, PLLC 480 W. Texas Avenue Waskom, Texas 75692 Phone: (903) 407-8455 Fax: (877) 320-5751 Email: josh@joshmaness.com - and - J. D. Mcmullen, Esq. THE TEXAS RESOLUTION, PLLC P.O. Box 14 Longview, TX 75606 Phone: (903) 205-7177 Email: jdm@thetxr.com TRA INDUSTRIES INC: Ledoux Files Suit in E.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TRA Industries Inc. The case is styled as Joshua Ledoux, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRA Industries Inc. doing business as: Huntwood Industries, Case No. 2:25-cv-00400-TOR (E.D. Wash., Oct. 8, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. TRA Industries Inc. doing business as Huntwood Industries -- https://www.huntwood.com/ -- are one of the premier custom cabinet companies in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Janelle N. Bailey, Esq. WASHINGTON INJURY LAW 1905 Queen Anne Avenue North, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98109 Phone: (206) 960-4522 Email: Litigation@WashingtonInjuryLaw.com TRANS UNION: Crockran Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trans Union LLC. The case is styled as Gwendolyn Crockran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Trans Union LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-11931 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 30, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. TransUnion LLC -- https://www.transunion.com/ -- is an American consumer credit reporting agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Nicholas Boley, Esq. Andrew James Grant, Esq. Zoran Tasic, Esq. Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP 311 S. Wacker Dr., Ste. 5450 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 346-2222 Email: jnb@wbe-llp.com ajg@wbe-llp.com zt@wbe-llp.com kaw@wbe-llp.com TRANS UNION: Kaplan Bid to Seal Motion to Certify Class Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLEY KAPLAN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02438-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Wendy Beetlestone entered an order denying the Plaintiff Lesley Kaplan's Motion to Seal Motion to Certify Class and Motion to Seal Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Defendant's Expert. Trans operates as a global information and insights company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=21LI9b at no extra charge.[CC] TRANSUNION LLC: Bingham Sues Over Failure to Maintain Security -------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Bingham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRANSUNION LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-08267 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 29, 2025), is brought against the Defendant as a result of the Defendant's failure to maintain proper security measures despite its promises of safety and security to consumers. The Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the highly valuable, PII of millions of US consumers, including their names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, phone numbers, home addresses, and other personal information (collectively, "Private Information" or "PII"). The Defendant also failed to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain Private Information and failed to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other members of the Class that their Private Information had been accessed and compromised. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate security and breach of its duties, the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members was disclosed to unauthorized criminal actors. The Data Breach was preventable and stemmed from the Defendant's ell known and avoidable cybersecurity failures. The Defendant failed to implement reasonable measures to protect its systems against unauthorized intrusion; maintain industry-standard safeguards; enforce strict vendor oversight and access controls; require regular password resets; encrypt the data it stored; and adequately train and audit employees to guard against phishing and other attacks. These systemic lapses left consumers' Private Information vulnerable to theft and misuse. TransUnion failed to adequately monitor the computer networks and cloud-based systems housing the Private Information. Proper monitoring would have detected the intrusion sooner--or prevented it altogether, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and the Class have suffered actual harm as a result of Defendant's conduct. TransUnion is a global information company and one of the three major credit bureaus in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sabita J. Soneji, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 254-6808 Email: ssoneji@tzlegal.com TRANSUNION LLC: Johnson Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- PATTI JOHNSON and JOHN CORBETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRANSUNION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01554 (W.D. Pa., October 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach that started on July 28, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. TransUnion, LLC is a global credit reporting agency, with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sara J. Watkins, Esq. D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 437 Grant Street, Suite 1100 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-7229 Facsimile: (412) 281-4229 Email: swatkins@peircelaw.com arihn@peircelaw.com TRANSUNION: LLC Sued Over Failure to Implement Data Security ------------------------------------------------------------ Shannon Bullard and Shameka Loveless, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRANSUNION LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-12028 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 1, 2025), is brought arising out of a recent cyberattack and data breach (the "Data Breach") resulting from TransUnion's failure to implement reasonable and industry-standard data security practices to protect its customers' personal identifying information, including Private Information. In providing such services to individuals across the country, TransUnion collects a significant amount of data – including individuals' personally identifiable information ("PII") such as names, addresses, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers ("Private Information"). TransUnion collects, uses, and derives a benefit from its customers' extremely sensitive Private Information--and it assumes a significant duty to protect that information. The Data Breach compromised and exposed customers' Private Information such as names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, bring this Action, seeking to recover damages and non-monetary relief, as well as any other relief this Court may deem just and proper, as a result of Defendant's actions and/or nonactions that led and/or allowed the Data Breach to occur, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were victims of the Data Breach. TransUnion touts itself as having "been in the business of enabling trust for over 50 years as a credit reporting agency."[BN] The Plaintiffs is represented by: Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Phone: (513) 345-8291 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com TRUSTLINE CARRIERS: Garcia Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trustline Carriers LLC. The case is styled as Miguel D. Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Trustline Carriers LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-02641-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal., Oct. 6, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Trustline Carriers -- https://www.trustlinecarriers.com/ -- is a reliable partner in auto transport across the USA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com TWO RIVERS DEMOLITION: Trevino Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Two Rivers Demolition, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Mark Trevino, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Two Rivers Demolition, Inc., A California Corporation, Does 1 through 100, Case No. 25CV023360 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Oct. 1, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Two Rivers Demolition is a reputable demolition company based in Rancho Cordova, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Megan Lazar, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, PC 1460 Westwood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-438-5555 Email: megan@tomorrowlaw.com UNION HOME MORTGAGE: Dimarco Sues Over Recent Cyberattack --------------------------------------------------------- Victor Dimarco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNION HOME MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-02073 (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 30, 2025), is brought arising out of a recent cyberattack and data breach (the "Data Breach") resulting from Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and industry-standard data security practices to protect its subjects' personal identifying information, including Private Information. In providing lending services to individuals across the country, Defendant collects a significant amount of data including personally identifiable information ("PII"). The Defendant collects, uses, and derives a benefit from its subjects' extremely sensitive PII--and it assumes a significant duty to protect that information. According to Defendant, it first detected the Data Breach on June 25, 2025 and subsequently learned on August 26, 2025 that the breach may have compromised and exposed customers' PII including "name, loan number, Social Security number, drivers license or government-issued ID number, or date of birth." (collectively, "Private Information"). On September 15, 2025, Defendant sent Plaintiff a Notice of Data Security Incident informing that Plaintiff's Private Information may have been exposed as part of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff brings this action, seeking to recover damages and non-monetary relief, as well as any other relief this Court may deem just and proper, as a result of Defendant's actions and/or nonactions that led to and/or allowed the Data Breach to occur, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided certain PII to the Defendant. The Defendant is a mortgage lender that operates in 48 states and the District of Columbia with approximately $5 billion in annual lending volume.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A. 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Phone: 513-345-8291 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and – Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Steet, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Bart D. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road - Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: 516-874-4505 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com - and - Patrick J. Brickman, Esq. Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., LPA 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Phone: (440) 352-3391 Email: fbartela@dworkenlaw.com UNITED FOOD: Heath Files Suit in D. Colorado -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local No. 7R. The case is styled as Lance Heath, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local No. 7R, Case No. 1:25-cv-03105-STV (D. Colo., Oct. 2, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) -- https://www.ufcw.org/ -- is a labor union made up of 1.3 million hard-working men and women in the U.S. and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean Short, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com UNITED PARCEL SERVICE: Palaguachi Suit Removed to E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Carlos Palaguachi, Robert Santiago, Ahmed Radwan, and Warren Payne, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Case No. 530162/2025 was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of New York on Oct. 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-05548. The Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of themselves and "all other delivery drivers employed by UPS in New York from January 28, 2018, through the present who have been similarly denied lawful wages and wage statements." In their Complaint, the Named Plaintiffs allege that the Putative Class is "so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable" and consists of "several thousand current and former drivers."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Leslie A. Lajewski, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 10 Madison Avenue, Suite 400 Morristown, NJ 07960 UNITED PARKS & RESORTS: Beeman Files Suit in M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Parks & Resorts, Inc. The case is styled as Michael Beeman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United Parks & Resorts, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-01931 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 6, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Deceptive Trade Practices. United Parks & Resorts Inc. -- https://unitedparks.com/ -- is an American theme park and entertainment company headquartered in Orlando, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arun Ravindran, Esq. RAVINDRAN LAW FIRM PLLC 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 300 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 677-8713 Email: arun@ravindranlaw.com UNITED STATES: Jones Suit Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vonda Jones et al., v. U.S. Department of Labor et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-12653-NMG (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) consisting of: All unemployed individuals who were engaged in Senior Community Service Employment Program programs funded through grants to national nonprofits under the 42 U.S.C. section 3056d(d) as of June 30, 2025. The Department administers federal labor laws to guarantee workers' rights to fair, safe, and healthy working conditions. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CbU0Ka at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven Y. Bressler, Esq. Kali Schellenberg, Esq. DEMOCRACRY FORWARD FOUNDATION Washington, DC 20043 Telephone: (202) 448-9090 E-mail: kschellenberg@democracyforward.org sbressler@democracyforward.org - and - Daniel F. Jacobson, Esq. Lynn D. Eisenberg, Esq. Kyla M. Snow, Esq. JACOBSON LAWYERS GROUP PLLC 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (301) 823-1148 E-mail: dan@jacobsonlawyersgroup.com UPSTART HOLDINGS: Crain Allowed to File FAC ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crain v. Upstart Holdings, Inc. et a. (re UPSTART HOLDINGS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 2:22-cv-02935-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Marbley entered an order granting Third Point Defendants' motion to intervene. The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file [proposed] first amended consolidated complaint is also granted. The Court finds no indication that intervention will cause undue delay or prejudice. No party has alleged prejudice, and Plaintiffs did not oppose the motion. As such, intervention by Third Point Defendants is warranted. Accordingly, the Court finds granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend warranted. There is no indication of undue delay, prejudice, or bad faith. The amendment is not barred by the PSLRA and serves to refine the pleadings based on material acquired during the course of litigation. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Upstart Defendants and Third Point Defendants. On March 27, 2025, the Court certified the following class under subsection 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Upstart Holdings, Inc. common stock or exchange-traded Upstart call options, or who sold exchange-traded Upstart put options (together, the "Securities"), between Dec. 16, 2020, and Nov. 8, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period")." Excluded from the Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii) the officers and directors of Upstart at all relevant times; and (iii) members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. Upstart is an AI lending platform that partners with banks and credit unions to provide consumer loans. A copy of the Court's opinion & order dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5tLr4m at no extra charge.[CC] US FOODS INC: Gaudio Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Anthony Gaudio, on behalf of himself and all other current and former non-exempt employees v. US FOODS, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS U.S. FOODSERVICE, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0012612 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Oct. 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02859-SCR. The Complaint asserts causes of action on a class-wide basis for: Failure to pay hourly and overtime wages; Failure to indemnify; Failure to provide accurate written wage statements; Failure to timely pay all final wages; Failure to timely pay wages during employment; and Violations of the Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Joseph C. Liburt, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park CA 94025 Phone: +1 650 614 7400 Facsimile: +1 650 614 7401 Email: jliburt@orrick.com - and - Katie E. Briscoe, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000 Sacramento, CA 95814-4497 Phone: +1 916 447 9200 Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900 Email: kbriscoe@orrick.com - and - Annie H. Chen, Esq. Lauren R. Leibovitch, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: +1 213 629 2020 Facsimile: +1 213 612 2499 Email: annie.chen@orrick.com lleibovitch@orrick.com US MED DIRECT: Leedy Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against US Med Direct, LLC. The case is styled as Christina Leedy, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. US Med Direct, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00631 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 8, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. US MED Direct -- https://www.usmeddirect.com/ -- is a fast, easy, low cost and convenient cash medical online store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 31 Samana Drive Miami, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com UVN LLC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against UVNV, LLC. The case is styled as Judith Adela Fernandez Martinez, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. UVNV, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-08284 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 7, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. UVNV, LLC, doing business as Ultra Mobile -- https://www.ultramobile.com/ -- provides telephone voice and data communications services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal VERADIGM INC: Braddock Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jalon Braddock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VERADIGM INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-11832 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 29, 2025), arising out of Veradigm's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack in December 2024 to compromise Defendant's network (the "Data Breach") that contained personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively, "the Private Information") of Plaintiffs and other individuals ("the Class"). This class action arises out of a 2024 data breach ("Data Breach") of documents and information stored on the computer network of Veradigm, a third-party providing software solutions to healthcare providers. The Defendant learned of the Data Breach on or around July 1, 2025, and determined that Class Members' Private Information had been compromised. Yet Defendant unreasonably delayed in notifying affected individuals, failing to begin issuing its Notice of Data Breach letters until September 22, 2025. As a result of Veradigm's Data Breach, 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, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Braddock is a patient at one of Veradigm's customers. Veradigm claims to be an "integrated data systems and services company that combines data-driven clinical insights with actionable tools to help healthcare stakeholders improve the quality, efficiency, and value of healthcare delivery—these stakeholders include life sciences, health plans, healthcare providers, and most importantly, the patients they serve."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Salena J. Chowdhury, Esq. Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. Ra O. Amen, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Phone: (202) 429-2290 Email: schowdhury@masonllp.com gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com ramen@masonllp.com VICTOR COMMUNITY: Alder Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Victor Community Support Services, Inc. The case is styled as Darrell Alder II, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Victor Community Support Services, Inc., Case No. 25STCV29336 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 7, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Victor -- https://www.victor.org/ -- provides a wide range of behavioral health, educational, and social support services to children, youth, families and adults throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sage S. Stone, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW PC 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-622-4278 VICTORIA SECRET: Chautin Sues Over Unlawful Marketing Text Message ------------------------------------------------------------------ Samantha Chautin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VICTORIA SECRET STORES, LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-01269-RRS-CBW (W.D. La., Sept. 1, 2025), is brought against the Defendant under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), as a result of unlawful marketing text message. The Defendant routinely violates the TCPA, by delivering, or causing to be delivered, more than one advertisement or marketing text message to residential or cellular telephone numbers registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry ("DNC Registry") without prior express invitation or permission required by the TCPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in this District. The Defendant is a limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. David Andress, Esq. ANDRESS LAW FIRM, LLC 143 Ridgeway Drive, Suite 227 Lafayette, LA 70503 Phone: (337) 347-9919 Fax (337) 541-2553 Email: andresslawfirm@gmail.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Castro Sues Over Discriminative Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Arantza Castro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA, INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation D/B/A VISIONWORKS, Case No. 1:25-cv-24641-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 8, 2025), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), as a result of the Defendant's discriminative website. The Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. Plaintiff attempted to purchase sunglasses on Defendant's website. However, the Plaintiff was not able to freely and fully use Defendant's website because it contains access barriers that make it inaccessible to persons with disabilities, and for which there is no reasonable accommodation for the Plaintiff. The Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. Although the Website appeared to have an "accessibility" statement displayed and an "accessibility" widget/plugin added, the "accessibility" statement and widget/plugin, when tested, still could not be effectively accessed by, and continued to be a barrier to, blind and visually disabled persons, including Plaintiff as a completely blind person. Plaintiff, although she attempted to access the statement, thus, was unable to receive any meaningful or prompt assistance through the "accessibility" statement and the widget/plugin to enable her to quickly, fully, and effectively navigate the Website, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses the computer regularly, but due to her visual disability, Plaintiff cannot use her computer without the assistance of appropriate and available auxiliary aids, screen reader software, and other technology and assistance. VISIONWORKS, is a company that sells glasses, sunglasses, and contact lenses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diego German Mendez, Esq. MENDEZ LAW OFFICES, PLLC P.O. BOX 228630 Miami, FL 33172 Phone: 305.264.9090 Facsimile: 1-305.809.8474 Email: info@mendezlawoffices.com - and - Richard J. Adams, Esq. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 6500 Cowpen Road, Suite 101 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Phone: 786-290-1963 Facsimile: 305-824-3868 Email: radamslaw7@gmail.com VIVID SEATS: Rubinstein Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANINE RUBINSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VIVID SEATS INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01387-PKC-AYS (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Pamela Chen entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration The Court said that the proceedings are stayed pending arbitration of Plaintiff's claim on a non-class basis. To be clear, even though the Court finds that there is a presumption of arbitrability and that the arbitration clause in this case requires that arbitrability be decided by the arbitrator, the Court is granting Defendant’s motion on the basis that Plaintiff's claim is subject to arbitration under the TOU. The Court declines to rule on Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The parties are directed to inform the Court of any resolution of the arbitration proceedings, or any other event, that would affect the stay of this matter. The Plaintiff filed her class action complaint on Feb. 25, 2024, alleging violations of New York’s Arts and Cultural Affairs Law ("ACAL"). According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant violated the ACAL because the total cost of tickets, inclusive of fees, "was not disclosed to Plaintiff[] at the beginning of the purchase process," i.e., when Plaintiff first viewed the available tickets for purchase and before Plaintiff selected any given ticket(s). On July 1, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Plaintiff made the purchase at issue on the Website on Aug. 2, 2023, when she bought eight tickets to a New York Mets baseball game. The Plaintiff proposes a class of Putative Plaintiffs who are "purchasers of tickets through Defendant's [Website] who were subjected to a ticket sales process which violated ACAL." Vivid is an online ticket market place and resale company. A copy of the Court's memorandum & order dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DYuhAe at no extra charge.[CC] VSI INC: Gutierrez Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against VSI, Inc. The case is styled as Angelica Gutierrez, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. VSI, Inc. doing business as Vallarta Supermarkets, Case No. 1:25-cv-01341-KES-SKO (E.D. Cal., Oct. 8, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. VSI, Inc. doing business as Vallarta Supermarkets Inc. -- https://vallartasupermarkets.com/en/ -- is an American supermarket chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com WASHINGTON AVE. ASSOCIATES: Lopez Sues Over Unlawful Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Lopez, and the others similarly situated v. WASHINGTON AVE. ASSOCIATES LLC and BONKO 01 LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-24651-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 8, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter, the "ADA"), and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines (hereinafter, the "ADAAG") as a result of the unlawful barriers. The Plaintiff has visited the Subject Premises and intends to return to utilize the goods, services, and accommodations offered to the public. However, he is deterred from returning while the discriminatory barriers and non-compliant policies described herein persist. The Plaintiff has been denied full and equal access to the Subject Premises, preventing him from enjoying the goods and services offered therein. These denials are caused by the physical barriers, including those outlined in this Complaint, and will continue until the barriers are removed. The Plaintiff has suffered harm and injury as a result of personally encountering barriers to access at the Subject Premises, and she will continue to suffer harm due to the Defendants' failure to address the ADA violations described herein. The Plaintiff has experienced direct and indirect injury as a result of the physical barriers and ADA violations at the Subject Premises and the Defendants' actions or inactions in remedying these violations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a double-leg amputee from above the knee, which limits his major life activities including but not limited to walking, and requires the use of a wheelchair for mobility purposes. BONKO 01 LLC, d/b/a BONCHON is a restaurant specializing in Korean style fried chicken and Asian fusion cuisine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lauren N. Wassenberg, Esq. LAUREN N. WASSENBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 33 SE 4th St., Ste. 100 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Phone: 844-702-8867 Email: WassenbergL@gmail.com WE PACK IT ALL: Flores Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against We Pack It All, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Mireya Flores, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. We Pack It All, LLC, Selective Personnel, Inc., Case No. 25STCV28441 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 24, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." WePackItAll -- https://www.wepackitall.com/ -- is a leading contract packaging and service company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com WESTCHESTER MEDICAL: Mincone Sues for Invasion of Privacy --------------------------------------------------------- JOHN MINCONE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER HEALTH NETWORK, Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-08049 (S.D.N.Y., September 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the New York General Business Law and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The Plaintiff and Class members are consumers who have used Defendant's website, wmchealth.org, within the statutory period seeking, among other things, to research medical services provided by Defendant. According to the complaint, Defendant's provision of medical services comes with a reasonable expectation of privacy because those services necessarily involve the handling of highly confidential health information. Such information -- whether relating to physical or mental health, treatment options, or other personal, medical matters -- is among the most sensitive in society, and its improper disclosure can undermine public confidence in the healthcare system and deters individuals from seeking care. The fact that Plaintiff accessed Defendant's website to research and procure medical services is, in and of itself, highly sensitive protected health information, but even more so when viewed in tandem with the other identifying datapoints collected by Defendant, such as device identifiers, Internet protocol address(es), usernames and login information, etc. However, rather than protect this information, as well as other potential data collected (e.g., personally identifiable information, protected health information, other personal and confidential information, etc.), the Defendant allows it to be collected, retained and used by third parties, including Alphabet, Salesforce.com, Inc., Vimeo, LLC, and Call Tracking Metrics LLC, who lack sufficient consent from Plaintiff and Class members to do so. As such, the Defendant has invaded or allowed for the invasion of Plaintiff's and Class members' privacy rights, says the suit. Westchester Medical Center Health Network provides medical services with principal place of business located in Valhalla, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Scott E. Silberfein, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com silberfeins@thesultzerlawgroup.com WESTERN MONTANA CLINIC: Murphy Suit Removed to D. Montana --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rebecca Murphy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE WESTERN MONTANA CLINIC, Case No. DV-32-2025-0000752-OC was removed from the Fourth Judicial District Court of Montana, Missoula County to the United States District Court for District of Montana on Oct. 8, 2025, and assigned Case No. 9:25-cv-00162-KLD. On September 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC"). In her FAC, Plaintiff does not allege any actual injury; instead, she alleges a variety of generic injury theories, including: diminution in value of Plaintiff and putative class members' "Private Information"; lost time; invasion of privacy; mitigation damages; and increased risk of future harm, including the future risk of out-of-pocket losses.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Keeley O. Cronin, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202-2662 Phone: 303.861.0600 Facsimile: 303.861.7805 Email: kcronin@bakerlaw.com WESTHAB INC: Lowther Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------- REGINA LOWTHER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTHAB, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08058 (S.D.N.Y., September 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff alleges pursuant to the federal and state laws that she and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendant: (1) unpaid wages, including overtime wages, due to time shaving, (2) statutory penalties, (3) liquidated damages, and (4) attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff's individual claims for discrimination and retaliation center on Defendants' reprehensible and disparate treatment of Plaintiff, particularly on the basis of her sex. The Plaintiff was hired to work as a case manager for Defendant on November 5, 2024. She continues to work for Defendant as of the filing of the Complaint. WestHab, Inc. is a not-for-profit corporation engaging in community development.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Kansao, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Ave., Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 E-mail: robert@employeejustice.com WHALECO INC: Coles Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Laura Coles, et al., and others similarly situated v. WHALECO, Inc., d/b/a TEMU; PDD Holdings, Inc., f/k/a PINDUODOU Inc.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-04651 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Sept. 2, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-07634-JGK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Application for Interception of Wire or Oral Communications. WHALECO, Inc., doing business as Temu -- https://www.temu.com/ -- is an online marketplace operated by e-commerce company PDD Holdings, which is owned by Colin Huang.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Potter, Esq. Krista Hemming, Esq. Tehniat Zaman, Esq. POTTER HANDY, LLP 100 Pine Street, Ste. 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (858) 375-7385 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: TEMUlit@potterhandy.com WHITTIER COLLEGE: Moreno Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whittier College. The case is styled as Jacqueline Moreno, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Whittier College, Case No. 25STCV29245 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 3, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Whittier College -- https://www.whittier.edu/ -- is a 4-year private liberal arts college located in Southern California between bustling Los Angeles and beautiful Orange County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah Hannah Cohen, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243 Phone: 310-438-5555 Email: sarah@tomorrowlaw.com WILLIAMSON MEDICAL: Ratcliff Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN RATCLIFF and EDIN HADZIKADUNIC, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated employees and all other affected persons, Plaintiffs v. WILLIAMSON MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01111 (M.D. Tenn., September 29, 2025) is a collective action, on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees, to remedy violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by Defendants. This class action seeks to recover underpaid and/or unpaid wages for Plaintiffs, as well as for all other affected persons who work or have worked for the Hospital within six years of the filing of this complaint. Additionally, the Defendant retaliated against Ratcliff by unlawfully terminating his employment in response to his protected activities, including oral and written complaints that the Hospital was violating the FLSA, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Ratcliff began working for the Hospital as a pro se nata nurse in approximately July 2024. Williamson Medical Center is a licensed, acute care governmental hospital that is owned by a governmental entity created by the State of Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq. Melody Fowler-Green, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC P.O. Box 159033 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 Facsimile: (615) 250-2020 E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com mel@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com - and - J. Stephen Aymett, Jr., Esq. RUCKER, RUCKER & AYMETT, P.C. 14 Public Square, North Murfreesboro, TN 37130 Telephone: (615) 893-1134 Facsimile: (615) 895-6334 E-mail: saymett@ruckerlaw.com YARDBIRD GROUP: Espinoza Sues Over Discriminative Website --------------------------------------------------------- Alejandro Espinoza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YARDBIRD GROUP LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company D/B/A YARDBIRD SOUTHERN TABLE & BAR, Case No. 1:25-cv-24605-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 7, 2025), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), as a result of the Defendant's discriminative website. The Defendant was and still is an organization owning and operating the website located at https://www.runchickenrun.com/. Since the website is open through the internet to the public as an extension of the retail stores, by this nexus the website is an intangible service, privilege and advantage of Defendant's brick and mortar locations, the Defendant has subjected itself and the associated website it created and maintains to the requirements of the ADA. The website also services Defendant's physical stores by providing information on its brand and other information that Defendant is interested in communicating to its customers about its physical locations. Although the Website appeared to have an "accessibility" statement displayed and an "accessibility" widget/plugin added, the "accessibility" statement and widget/plugin, when tested, still could not be effectively accessed by, and continued to be a barrier to, blind and visually disabled persons, including Plaintiff as a completely blind person. Plaintiff, although she attempted to access the statement, thus, was unable to receive any meaningful or prompt assistance through the "accessibility" statement and the widget/plugin to enable her to quickly, fully, and effectively navigate the Website, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses the computer regularly, but due to his visual disability, Plaintiff cannot use his computer without the assistance of appropriate and available auxiliary aids, screen reader software, and other technology and assistance. YARDBIRD SOUTHERN TABLE & BAR, is a company that sells starters, salads, chicken, mac and cheese, rib, pasta, ribs, filet, sides, dessert, beverages, and sandwich.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diego German Mendez, Esq. MENDEZ LAW OFFICES, PLLC P.O. BOX 228630 Miami, FL 33172 Phone: 305.264.9090 Facsimile: 1-305.809.8474 Email: info@mendezlawoffices.com - and - Richard J. Adams, Esq. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 6500 Cowpen Road, Suite 101 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Phone: 786-290-1963 Facsimile: 305-824-3868 Email: radamslaw7@gmail.com YEPLEADS INC: Quintana Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ TAMARA QUINTANA, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YEPLEADS INC. D/B/A SOLAR MAESTROS, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02564-RSH-DEB (S.D. Cal., September 29, 2025) alleges that Defendant negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully placed unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff and the putative class on their respective cellular phones which are registered with the National Do-Not Call Registry, all in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The complaint asserts that the Defendant sent numerous unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone for the purpose of soliciting business from Plaintiff while Plaintiff's telephone number was registered with the DNC. The Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited text messages to numbers on the DNC, as well as an award of statutory damages and treble damages (for knowing and/or willful violations) for Plaintiff and members of the Class (defined below) per violation, together with court costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees. Yepleads Inc. d/b/a Solar Maestros is a company that provides solar installation services to residential homeowners and commercial building owners.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. David J. McGlothlin, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. Gustavo Ponce, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com david@kazlg.com gustavo@kazlg.com ZUFFA LLC: Guedes Files Motion to Quash Subpoena in Johnson Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the putative class action lawsuit styled IN RE: SUBPOENA OF ANA CLAUDIA C. GUEDES, ESQ., Case No. 3:25-cv-02666-AJB-AHG, non-party Ana Claudia C. Guedes, Esq., filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on October 7, 2025, a motion to quash, or in the alternative modify, a subpoena for the production of documents, issued to her by the litigants in the matter Johnson et al. v. Zuffa, LLC dba Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01189-RFB-BNW. Ms. Guedes brings this motion to quash in order to protect herself, her clients, and their professional partners, from an abusive document subpoena that was issued in connection with the underlying antitrust action pending in the District of Nevada in which a class of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) athletes alleges antitrust violations against MMA promoter Zuffa, LLC, dba The Ultimate Fighting Championship. This motion is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3) on multiple grounds: the Plaintiffs' subpoena fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; requires disclosure of privileged matter; is overly broad as to time and scope; subjects Ms. Guedes to undue burden and expense; and requires disclosure of sensitive or confidential commercial information. Zuffa, LLC is an American sports promotion company based in Las Vegas, Nevada. [BN] The Non-party is represented by: Alan K. Brubaker, Esq. Mark A. Amador, Esq. WINGERT GREBING BRUBAKER & WALSHOK LLP 1230 Columbia Street, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92101-3370 Telephone: (619) 232-8151 Facsimile: (619) 232-4665 Email: abrubaker@wingertlaw.com mamador@wingertlaw.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***