251021.mbx

251021.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, October 21, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 210 Headlines 20/20 CUSTOM: Seeks More Time to File Anders Class Cert Response 3M COMPANY: Bid to Stay Hernandez Case Pending Mediation Tossed 3M COMPANY: Isbell Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Jones Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Key Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Minton Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: Parris Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd 4805 AUSTELL POWDER: Stanley Sues Over Inaccessible Properties 55 MIRACLE MILE REAL: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property 7357 BAR LLC: Herrera Sues Over Disability Discrimination ACCELLION INC: Brown Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd AETNA INC: Berton Suit Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement AIRBNB INC: Kramer Suit Removed to D. Minnesota ALASKA AIRLINES: Must Oppose Class Certification by Jan. 14, 2026 ALBA R. LOERA: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property AMAZON PRIME: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Bid Filing AMAZON.COM INC: Court Dismisses Floyd Class Action AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Rai Suit Removed to W.D. Washington AMERICAN BENCH: Bennett Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind AMERICAN HONDA: Modified Scheduling Order Entered in Shamman Suit ANTHEM COMPANIES: Wins Summary Judgment v. Lazaar APEX REALTY: Court Narrows Claims in Bell Class Action APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit for Alleged Copyright Infringement ARAMARK CAMPUS: Bazemore Suit Removed to E.D. California ARB GAMING LLC: Harris Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ARB GAMING LLC: Kowalok Files Suit in N.D. Ohio ARBY'S RESTAURANT: Court Narrows Claims in Alongis Suit ASHLEY FURNITURE: Floyd Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ASPEN CORPORATION: Felton Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation AUTONATION INC: Justice Suit Removed to W.D. Washington AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Almeida Sues Over Unlawfully Charged Fees AWE.BJECT LLC: Bennett Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind B&G FOODS: Hourly Workers Receive Class Action Compensation BAI BRANDS: Bid to Seal Class Exhibits Temporarily Granted BASSETT HEALTHCARE: Court Withdraws Browning Class Cert Bid BBBB BONDING: Class Cert Fact Discovery Due July 10, 2026 BEIERSDORF INC: Albino Suit Removed to S.D. New York BELKORP AG LLC: Jones Files Suit in E.D. California BELL PARTNERS: Morehouse Suit Removed to C.D. California BESTWAY USA INC: Piceno Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois BETTER RISE CAPITA: Soto Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California BETTER RISE: Kesterson Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Calls BFC SOLUTIONS: Strickland Suit Removed to D. Minnesota BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES: Deleon Files Suit in E.D. Virginia BIG AGNES INC: Bennett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BONEFIDE PRODUCTIONS: Tehrani Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BOOM SHAKALAKA: Abbot Files Suit in N.D. Illinois BOYD GAMING: Cazau-Degenova Sues Over Recent Data Breach BOYD GAMING: Furman Sues Over Recent Data Security Incident BOYD GAMING: Jackson Files Suit in D. Nevada BOYKIN LIMITED: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property BRAND I101: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised Soap BRANDEN MARTIN: Walker Suit Seeks to Certify Classes BRAVO CARE: Wilson Files Suit in Philadelphia Ct. of Common Pleas BRIGHTSTAR GLOBAL: Mena Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPES: Roberts Suit Removed to W.D. Washington BROOKS AUTOMATION: Deol Sues Over Unlawful Surveillance C-STORE SERVICES INC: Reyes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CALIDAD INDUSTRIES: Alvarez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CAMPER ATLANTIC CORP: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CAMPER'S INN INC: Campuzan Files Suit in N.D. Florida CAPITAL OB/GYN INC: Lipunov Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL: Shah Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas CAPITAL ONE SERVICES: Wilmoth Sues Over Unpaid Overtime CAPITAL ONE: Flesner Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania CARD DELIVERY: Standing Order Entered in Shah Class Action CAREMARKPCS HEALTH: Second Amended Class Complaint Dismissed CASEY'S RETAIL: Mason Suit Removed to S.D. Iowa CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Diaz Suit Removed to C.D. California CERNER CORPORATION: Tripp Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri CHANEL INC: Dale Suit Removed to C.D. California CHARLES RIVER LABORATORIES: Mendez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Maharaj Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd CHILDREN'S PLACE INC: Watler Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California CHRISTINA PABST: Anheuser-Busch Suit Removed to N.D. California CLEVELAND ATKINSON: Myrick Seeks Conditional Cert of Action COLUMBUS DENTAL CORP: Brooks Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana COMMODORE CONSTRUCTION: Dutton Sues Over WARN Act Violation CONCIERGE AUCTIONS: Knoche Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida COOPERATIVE RESPONSE CENTER: Anderson Sues Over Unpaid Wages CORDS CLUB INC: Bahena Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Bullard Suit over False Advertising COVENANT PRACTICE: Cruz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CPA GLOBAL: Brainchild Seeks to File Class Exhibits Under Seal CPA GLOBAL: Brainchild Surgical Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification CRASH CHAMPIONS: Rocha Suit Removed to W.D. Washington DAILY HARVEST INC: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Allman Sues Over Illegal Wage Practices DAUPHIN COUNTY, PA: Court Narrows Claims in Little Class Suit DCM SERVICES: Fiorito Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Websites DEANCO HEALTHCARE: Wasp Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DFG RESTAURANTS: Blanco Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DISNEY WORLDWIDE: Desouvre Sues Over Intrusive Business Practices DLS EVENTS: Meza Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages DOLLAR TREE STORES: Cressey Suit Removed to S.D. California DRURY HOTELS: $290K Settlement in Knighten Suit Wins Approval DUMPLING KING GROUP: Campbell Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination EAST CENTRAL: Appeals Remand Order in Moser Suit to 8th Circuit ENTEGRIS INC: Hurtado Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. EQUITY ONE: Marino Sues Over Inaccessible Property EVANSVILLE VANDERBURGH: Faces Suit Over Discrimination, Retaliation EVENFLO COMPANY: Faces Class Suit Over Design Hazards of Car Seats EVERGREEN ALLIANCE GOLF: Conant Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. EVERGUARD HOME INSULATION: Flores Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. EVERGY INC: Doll Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal EXACT CARE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Everett Suit Due Dec. 8 EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 9, 2026 EYEMED VISION: $5-Mil. Suit Settlement Final OK Hearing Set Jan. 7 FACTS ON DEMAND: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid FARMERS INSURANCE: Tongpalad Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FASTAFF LLC: Court Partly OK's Egan Class Cert Bid FASTAFF LLC: Scheduling Conference in Egan Set for Nov. 6 FEDERAL SAVINGS: Sapan Loses Class Certification Bid FERRARI EXPRESS: Rivera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FIRST FINANCIAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 29, 2026 FIVE STAR BANK: Castro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FLORIDA NATURAL: Kolkin Sues Over Orange Juice's Deceptive Labels FLORIDA: Donaldson Class Action Closed FLOWERS BAKERIES: Austin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FOREST & EINSTEIN STAFFING: Holder Files Suit in C.D. California FREEDOMROADS LLC: Aguilar Suit Removed to E.D. Washington GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Class Action Over 'Shift to Park' Defect GIFTROCKET INC: Gracie Suit Seeks to Certify Classes GKN DRIVELINE: Mebane Appeals Class. Cert & Attorney Fees Orders GRAINCORP LTD: Settles Class Action Over Noise Emission in Numurkah HELP AT HOME: Clayborn Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage HOTELS.COM LP: Echevarria Appeals Judgment Order to 11th Circuit J.A. ALEXANDER: Parties Seek Initial OK of Class Action Settlement JENNMAR CORP: Bid for Decertification of FLSA Class Tossed KBR INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due November 18 KEVIN PEDERSEN: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property KSR VENTURE: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Martinez Suit Says LCT OPCO: Court OKs $450K Wage and Hour Settlement in "Paraham" LIVEOPS INC: Barajas Sues Over Data Privacy Violations LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Dec. 16 LOUISIANA: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Giroir Suit to 5th Circuit MAREX GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due December 8 METROPOLIS TECHNOLOGIES: Scares Drivers Into Paying Exorbitant Fees MICROMOBILITY.COM INC: Barro Seeks to Certify Purchaser Class MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Antitrust Class Lawsuit Over OpenAI Deal MINWAX : Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 2 NAHON SAHAROVICH: Attys Get $77K in "Garbarino" Data Breach Case NATIONAL GRID: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims NEW HAMPSHIRE: Clark Suit Seeks Class Certification NEW YORK TIMES: Hoffman Suit Removed to D. New Jersey NEW YORK, NY: Partially Wins Bid for Summary Judgment NEWELL BRANDS INC: Corbett Files Suit in E.D. New York NINTENDO OF AMERICA: J.A. Suit Transferred to N.D. California NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Dunbar Sues Over Defective Class Vehicles NORDSTROM INC: Ayala Suit Removed to C.D. California NORIGAMI INC: Doncouse Sues Over Discrimination on Premises NORTH MEMORIAL: Partially Wins Discovery Bid in "Kaliher" Suit NORTHERN STAR: Bybee Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Claims in LCG Class Suit ORLANDO HEALTH: Plaintiff Files Bid for Class Certification ORLANDO HEALTH: W.W. Seeks Leave to File Declaration Under Seal OUTCOMES ONE: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines PANERA BREAD: Cohan Sues Over Discriminative Property PARTY CITY: $3.9MM Class Settlement Gets Final Court Approval PEAK MANAGEMENT: Thompson Suit Removed to D. Maryland PENSKE TRUCK: Mercardo Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. PG&E CORPORATION: Court Junks Securities Suit PIPING ROCK: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Ama Lawsuit PNC FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Unprotected Personal Info PROCTER & GAMBLE: Parties Seek To Modify Class Cert Schedule QUANEX BUILDING: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set Nov. 18 QUANTUM CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set November 3 QUICK MED: Class Cert. Discovery in Roth Suit Due Feb. 27, 2026 REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Class Cert Hearing in Washington Adjourned SALT HARBOR INC: Mosquera Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages SOM JAI: Porfirio Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge for Pretrial STATE FARM: Faces Class Suit Over Auto Claims Payouts in Tennessee STRADA SERVICES: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines T-MOBILE USA INC: Diaz Suit Removed to E.D. California TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR: Must Produce Performance Data, Court Says TANDEM DIABETES: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims TARGET CORP: Parties Seek Class Certification Briefing Schedules TENNESSEE: Court Narrows Claims in Doe Suit THERAPYMATCH INC: Biberfeld Class Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y. TIKTOK INC: Faces Class Suit in Canada Over Psychological Harm TRANS UNION: Theodore Suit Seeks Class Certification of Claims TRANSUNION LLC: Kaplan Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification TRANSUNION LLC: Kaplan Seeks to File Docs Under Seal TRANSUNION LLC: Trotman Must File Amended Complaint by Oct. 31 UNDER ARMOUR: Rappaport Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit UNION PACIFIC: Black Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification UNION PACIFIC: Seeks to Exclude Expert Witnesses' Opinions UNITED NATURAL: Mediation on Securities Suit Set for Nov. 17 UNITED STATES: Appeals TRO and Injunction Order in Casa Class Suit UNITED STATES: Osborne Appeals Court Order to 2nd Circuit UNITED STEELWORKERS: Class Cert Discovery Due Feb. 9, 2026 UNITED WHOLESALE: Court Narrows Claims in Escue Suit US RENAL CARE: Taclob Suit Removed to C.D. California VAUGHAN MCLEAN: Demetro Class Action Dismissed VIRGINIA WHITE: RWC Seeks to Stay Class Cert Proceedings WASHINGTON TIMES: Must File Responsive Pleading by Nov. 3 WATA INC: Filing for Third Bid for Class Certification Due Oct. 29 WEDGE MEDICAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 22, 2026 WESTERN CONFERENCE: Modified Case Schedule in Paieri Suit Entered WILDE BRANDS: Fischer Sues Over Deceptively Sold Products WPP PLC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due December 8 XCEL ENERGY: Status Report Entered in Arandell Class Action XTO ENERGY: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Brusamonti ********* 20/20 CUSTOM: Seeks More Time to File Anders Class Cert Response ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DALTON ANDERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. 20/20 CUSTOM MOLDED PLASTICS, LTD, Case No. 1:25-cv-00468-ALT (N.D. Ind.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order enlarging the deadline for the Defendant to file its response to the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of collective action up to and including Oct. 15, 2025. The Defendant contends that it requires additional time to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Certification due to the fact that it is just now answering the Complaint. On Sept. 4, 2025, the Plaintiff filed his collective action complaint for damages. On Sept. 8, 2025, the Plaintiff filed his motion for certification. The Defendant manufactures plastic products. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=93RR60 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Michelle Neidigh Maslowski, Esq. David B. Jordan, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 111 Monument Circle, Suite 702 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 287-3600 Facsimile: (317) 636-0712 E-mail: mmaslowski@littler.com djordan@littler.com 3M COMPANY: Bid to Stay Hernandez Case Pending Mediation Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIO , v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00960-FLA-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha entered an order: -- Denying joint motion to stay case pending mediation; and -- Extending deadline to hear motion for class certification on the court's own motion. On Sept. 10, 2025, the Plaintiff and the Defendant 3M Company filed a joint motion to stay case pending mediation. The parties state they have confirmed and scheduled an Oct. 28, 2025, mediation date, and request the court stay all discovery through the completion of mediation. The parties' desire to focus their efforts on mediation does not constitute good cause for the stay requested. Accordingly, the motion is denied. Nevertheless, the court exercises its discretion to extend the deadline for a hearing on a motion for class certification to May 1, 2026, on the court's own motion. 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, and consumer goods. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7Sb0xA at no extra charge.[CC] 3M COMPANY: Isbell Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Blake Isbell, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01419 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-12708-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: Jones Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Angela Jones, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01469 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-12743-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: Key Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as John W. Key, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01420 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-12706-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: Minton Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ronald Minton, Jr., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2025-903089.00 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Alabama on Sept. 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01476-ACA. 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," that he "was exposed to PFAS chemicals through drinking water both at home and at their place of work" and allegedly suffered injury due to "contamination on behalf of the defendants, and potential AFFF sources," and allegedly suffered injury "as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Jacob M. Salow, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com jsalow@lightfootlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Parris Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EARL PARRIS, JR. Individually, and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly situated, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00040-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Thrash, Jr. entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff Parris's motion for class certification. The motion for class certification is granted as to the past damages sought through the Damages Class, but the motion is denied as to the future damages sought through the Damages Class and the Injunction Class. The Court is persuaded that the City's suit is the "most efficient, effective and economic means of settling the controversy" without sacrificing fairness to the putative class. The request to certify a class for future damages faces insurmountable obstacles. The trouble with the Plaintiff's proposed Injunction Class is that he does not want this Court to order Defendants to do (or stop doing) anything now, besides paying money to remedy the purported harm to the putative class. Specifically, the demands that Defendants pay for, among other things, an expensive GAC filtration system. But that request is just a dressed-up version of his request for monetary damages—Parris has not shown and cannot show that this so called "injunction" request differs in any way from his request for damages to cover the cost of the filtration system. The Plaintiff Earl Parris, Jr. alleges that the Defendants have contaminated his household water with PFAS. Parris is a resident of Summerville, Georgia, who receives potable water to his home from the Summerville Public Works and Utilities Department. The case arises out of the contamination of the Raccoon Creek watershed in Chattooga County, Georgia, with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances known as "PFAS." PFAS are a group of synthetic chemicals that have been used since the 1940s in "a wide variety of industrial and commercial applications." 3M manufactures a wide range of products, including abrasives, adhesive tape and related products. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zYhsax at no extra charge.[CC] 4805 AUSTELL POWDER: Stanley Sues Over Inaccessible Properties -------------------------------------------------------------- Solomon Stanley, individually, and all others so similarly situated v. 4805 AUSTELL POWDER SPRINGS, LLC, A Domestic Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-05744-MHC (N.D. Ga., Oct. 6, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, and attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), which contained numerous architectural barriers for the disabled. The Plaintiff, upon visiting the property, personally suffered discrimination because of his disability. There are several elements and spaces that Plaintiff personally encountered and which discriminated against him based upon him disability, such as: There is no accessible parking for a disabled individual to use. There are no access aisles for a disabled individual to use. There is a lack of signage indicating where the accessible parking is located. There is an excessive threshold at the entrance door that creates a tripping hazard for a disabled individual. There is a lack of an accessible route from the parking to the entrance for a disabled individual to use. The Plaintiff will continue to suffer such discrimination, injury and damage without the immediate relief provided by the ADA as requested herein. The Plaintiff has been denied access to, and has been denied the benefits of services, programs and activities of the Defendant's buildings and its facilities, the opportunity to use such elements, and have otherwise been discriminated against and damaged by the Defendants because of the Defendant's ADA violations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff suffers from mobility issues, utilizes prescribed knee braces, must ambulate with a cane. The Defendant owns, leases, leases to, or operates BP Gas Station, and is responsible for complying with the obligations of the ADA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Pete M. Monismith, Esq. 1000 Main Street, Suite 2016 Pittsburgh, PA 15215 Phone: 724-610-1881 Email: Pete@monismithlaw.com 55 MIRACLE MILE REAL: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ------------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. 55 MIRACLE MILE REAL ESTATE AND INVESTMENTS, LLC and 70 ARAGON, INC. D/B/A ANABA RESTAURANT AKA IRON SUSHI, Case No. 1:25-cv-24610-JB (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 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 33 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 is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, 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. 55 MIRACLE MILE REAL ESTATE AND INVESTMENTS, LLC owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property.[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 7357 BAR LLC: Herrera Sues Over Disability Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Herrera, on behalf of others similarly situated v. 7357 BAR LLC, d/b/a SUNNY'S, a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 1:25-cv-24441-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://sunnysmia.com (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the location of Defendant's physical restaurant. The Defendant also sells to the public its food and beverage products through the Website, which acts as a critical point of sale and ordering for Defendant's food and beverage products made in and also available for purchase in, from, and through Defendant's physical restaurant. 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 a restaurant located in Miami, Florida.[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 ACCELLION INC: Brown Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown v. Accellion, Inc. (RE ACCELLION, INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 5:21-cv-01155-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward Davila entered an order: -- granting Accellion's motion to strike and striking paragraphs 5–8, 13, 15, 17, and 19–63 of Mr. Korczyk's report, and -- granting in part and denying in part the motion for class Certification. The Court certifies the following classes: UC Regents Subclass (represented by Chavez, Galvis, and McDole), Centene Subclass (represented by Olson), Flagstar Subclass (represented by Moniz), WASAO Subclass (represented by Rodriguez and Worrick), and the WCPA Subclass (represented by Rodriguez and Worrick). These subclasses are certified only as to the disclosure of private information theory of injury and nominal damages. The parties shall meet and confer and present the Court with a stipulated schedule (or a joint status report setting forth competing proposals) within twenty-one (21) days of this Order. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements for certifying their customer specific subclasses. As the Plaintiffs indicate that they would prefer a nominal damages class under Rule 23(b)(3) over a liability-only issue class under Rule 23(c)(4), the Court certifies those subclasses under Rule 23(b)(3). The primary class that Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify is defined as follows: Negligence Class: "All natural persons whose PII [personally identifiable information] and/or PHI [personal health information] was compromised as a result of the Data Breach of the following Accellion customers (i) The Regents of the University of California, (ii) Centene, (iii) Flagstar, (iv) Washington State Auditor’s Office, and (v) Kroger, and who resided in California, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, or Washington at the time of the Data Breach." In the alternative, Plaintiffs propose two sets of subclasses. The first set of subclasses is divided by Accellion customer: UC Regents Subclass: "All natural persons whose PII and/or PHI was compromised as a result of, and who resided in California at the time of, the Data Breach of The Regents of The University of California's FTA. Centene Subclass: "All natural persons whose PII and/or PHI was compromised as a result of, and who resided in California at the time of, the Data Breach of Centene's FTA." Flagstar Subclass: "All natural persons whose PII and/or PHI was compromised as a result of, and who resided in California at the time of, the Data Breach of Flagstar's FTA." WASAO Subclass: "All natural persons whose PII and/or PHI was compromised as a result of, and who resided in Washington at the time of, the Data Breach of the Washington State Auditor's Office's FTA." These customer-specific subclasses would be narrower than the proposed Negligence Class because they do not include residents of Georgia, Illinois, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, or Michigan. Id. at 12 n.5. They also exclude individuals whose personal data was exposed by the breach of Kroger. The second set of alternative subclasses is divided by state. Plaintiffs propose three state specific subclasses: California Subclass: "All natural persons whose PII and/or PHI was compromised as a result of the Data Breach of the following Accellion customers (i) The Regents of the University of California, (ii) Centene, and (iii) Flagstar and who resided in California at the time of the Data Breach." Oklahoma Subclass: "All natural persons whose PII and/or PHI was compromised as a result of, and who resided in Oklahoma at the time of, the Data Breach of Kroger's FTA." Washington Subclass: "All natural persons whose PII and/or PHI was compromised as a result of, and who resided in Washington at the time of, the Data Breach of the Washington State Auditor's Office's FTA." WCPA Subclass The Plaintiffs also propose a WCPA Subclass that is identical to the WASAO Subclass in every way except that the underlying claim is violation of the WCPA. The reasons for certifying the WASAO Subclass apply with equal force to the WCPA Subclass, so the Court certifies this subclass as well. Accellion is a technology company that develops and markets software products for securely transferring sensitive files and data. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AHGaR1 at no extra charge.[CC] AETNA INC: Berton Suit Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARA BERTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. AETNA INC. and AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:23-cv-01849-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Nov. 6, 2025, will move the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure sections 23(a), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (e) for an order: (i) preliminarily approving the proposed class action settlement entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendants Aetna Inc. and Aetna Life Insurance Co. ("Settlement"), a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Rebecca Peterson-Fisher; (ii) provisionally certifying the settlement Classes; (iii) appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative of both Classes; (iv) appointing the Plaintiff's Counsel as Class Counsel for both Classes; (v) appointing Atticus Administration LLC ("Atticus") as Settlement Administrator; The Parties have agreed to seek the preliminary certification of the following injunctive settlement class pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(2): "Individuals with uteruses in an Eligible LGBTQ+ Relationship who are currently or will be covered during the Class Period for the National Injunctive Relief Class by a commercial health plan provided or administered by Aetna Life Insurance Company in the United States that includes fertility benefits and (1) who meet the clinical criteria for fertility services under the currently operative or any subsequent version of CPB No. 327 other than the criteria challenged in this Civil Action and (2) who currently or will in the future want to obtain coverage for intrauterine ("IUI") or intracervical insemination ("ICI"), or request a form of IVF consistent with Advanced Reproductive Technology ("ART") coverage pursuant to Aetna's clinical policy requiring trials of less invasive therapeutic approaches as defined in CPB No. 327." The Parties also have agreed to seek preliminary certification of the following damages settlement class pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(3) (the "California Damages Settlement Class"): "All California Commercial Plan members: (1) who were covered during the California Damages Class Period and at the time of service by a plan that offered coverage for infertility treatments; (2) for whom there is not a reason, other than the Definition of Infertility, why the individual did not qualify for coverage for infertility treatments obtained under the individual's healthcare plan; (3) who meet the criteria for Categories A, B, C, or D as set forth below; and (4) who, if members of Categories B, C, or D, file any Attestation and/or Claim Form Submission required by the Settlement Agreement to participate in the Settlement. Category A: Category A class members consist of California residents whose Aetna member files contain a denial of a precertification or claim request for one of an agreed-upon set of IUI/ICI codes and whose member files contain information to suggest they were a person with a uterus in an Eligible LGBTQ+ Relationship at the time they sought coverage for IUI/ICI. Category A members will receive notice of the settlement and will be automatically entitled for all payments unless they opt out. Category B: Potential Category B California Damages Class Members consist of California residents whose Aetna member files contain a denial of a precertification or claim request for one of an agreed-upon set of IUI/ICI codes and whose Aetna member files do not indicate they were in a heterosexual relationship at the time they sought coverage. These individuals will receive notice and an opportunity to submit an Attestation certifying they were individuals with uteruses in an Eligible LGBTQ+ Relationship at the time they sought IUI/ICI coverage. The people who submit an Attestation and meet the other eligibility criteria in this Agreement will be Category B California Damages Class Members entitled to receive settlement payments (as set forth in Part D below). Category C: Potential Category C Class Members who will receive direct notice are Aetna members who were either denied or approved for an agreed-upon set of IVF codes during the Class Period. In addition to direct notice to Potential Category C Class Members, the Parties will issue publication notice via an agreed-upon set of publications and/or social media sites. The people who respond with (1) an Attestation certifying they were individuals with uteruses in an Eligible LGBTQ+ Relationship at the time of seeking services during the Class Period, and (2) a Claim Form setting forth evidence satisfactory to the Parties of out-of-pocket costs incurred for IUI/ICI during the Class Period, will be Category C California Damages Class Members entitled to receive settlement payments. Category D: Potential Category D Class Members consist of California residents whose Aetna member files contain a denial of a precertification or claim request for one of an agreed-upon set of IUI/ICI codes and whose Aetna member files establish that the individual had a denial that was followed by an approval within 90 days, or was otherwise paid by Aetna. There are two subcategories of potential California Damages Class Members within D: i. Category D-A is made up of individuals with uteruses whose Aetna member files contain information to suggest they were in an Eligible LGBTQ+ Relationship at the time they sought coverage; ii. Category D-B is made up of individuals with uteruses whose Aetna member files do not indicate they were in a heterosexual relationship at the time they sought coverage. The Complaint defined the California Damages Class as: All LGBTQ individuals with uteruses who, at any time in the last four years, are or were Members of an Aetna health plan in California that included fertility benefits and incorporated Aetna’s Infertility Policy, and who incurred out-of-pocket expenses and/or other compensable damages as a result of Aetna’s Infertility Policy. The Plaintiff seeks preliminary approval of a class action settlement with the Defendants that includes an estimated monetary recovery of $11,408 per person as well as important policy changes. The Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges a single cause of action for discrimination in violation of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, on behalf of a California Damages Class and a National Injunctive Relief Class. The Complaint alleges that Aetna designed, sold, and administered health benefit plans that facially discriminated on the basis of sex, including sexual orientation and/or gender identity, in the provision of fertility benefits. Aetna is an American managed health care company that sells traditional and consumer directed health care insurance and related services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EWkd40 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Peterson-Fisher, Esq. Jennifer L. Liu, Esq. Hugh Baran, Esq. Marilyn Robb, Esq. KATZ BANKS KUMIN LLP 235 Montgomery St. Suite 665 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 813-3260 Facsimile: (415) 813-2495 E-mail: peterson-fisher@katzbanks.com liu@katzbanks.com baran@katzbanks.com robb@katzbanks.com - and - Barbara J. Chisholm, Esq. E. Leonard, Esq. Connie K. Chan, Esq. Robin S. Tholin, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 E-mail: bchisholm@altshulerberzon.com dleonard@altshulerberzon.com cchan@altshulerberzon.com rtholin@altshulerberzon.com - and - Michelle Banker, Esq. Alison Tanner, Esq. Noel Leon, Esq. NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER 1350 I Street NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 588-5180 E-mail: mbanker@nwlc.org atanner@nwlc.org nleon@nwlc.org AIRBNB INC: Kramer Suit Removed to D. Minnesota ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tom and Rachael Kramer, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. AIRBNB, INC., Case No. 62-CV-25-8562 was removed from the Ramsey County District Court, to the United States District Court for District of Minnesota on Oct. 1, 2025, and assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-03822. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs assert claims pursuant to the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act, and Minnesota Unfair Claims Practices Act, in connection with the host damage protection contractual guarantee that Airbnb offers to hosts, like Plaintiffs, who list their properties for booking using Airbnb's online marketplace. The Plaintiffs allege that Airbnb "engages in unfair, deceptive, confusing, or unconscionable acts or practices" by making certain allegedly deceptive representations about the nature of its host damage protection program.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Andrew M. Meerkins, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 777 E Wisconsin Ave Milwaukee, WI 53202-5306 Phone: 414.271.2400 Fax: 414.297.4900 Email: ameerkins@foley.com ALASKA AIRLINES: Must Oppose Class Certification by Jan. 14, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WESLEY MARECHEAU, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., an Alaska corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-03780-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order as follows: 1. The dates in the Court's second amended scheduling order will remain the same; and 2. The opposition to the motion for class certification deadline shall be Jan. 14, 2026, and the reply deadline shall be Feb. 4, 2026. The Parties anticipate they will need additional time to prepare their opposition and reply, to provide sufficient time for any depositions if needed, and in light of the Thanksgiving holiday. The Plaintiff's counsel will also be unavailable, as indicated in their notice of unavailability, and unable to attend or defend any depositions, from Dec. 22, 2025, through Jan. 2, 2026. Alaska provides air transportation services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Rj7G3w at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Natalie Haritoonian, Esq. Arsine Grigoryan, Esq. Rose Sorial, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 E-mail: n.haritoonian@d.law a.grigoryan@d.law r.sorial@d.law The Defendants are represented by: Paul S. Cowie, Esq. Patricia M. Jeng, Esq. Melissa Hughes, Esq. Julia G. Remer, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com pjeng@sheppardmullin.com mhughes@sheppardmullin.com jremer@sheppardmullin.com ALBA R. LOERA: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ------------------------------------------------------ Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. ALBA R. LOERA and LA CRUZADA RESTAURANT, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-24576-BB (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 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. ALBA R. LOERA, owned and operated a commercial property at 331 Park Place, Homestead, 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 AMAZON PRIME: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Bid Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Amazon Prime Video Litigation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00401-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of 60 days to the deadlines for discovery and class-certification briefing currently set forth in the Court's July 16, 2025, Order. Event Current Date Proposed Date Close of Fact Discovery: Oct. 24, 2025 Dec. 23, 2025 Close of Expert Discovery: Jan. 13, 2025 Mar. 16, 2026 Close of Rebuttal Expert Feb. 25, 2025 Apr. 27, 2026 Discovery: Deadline for Motion for Apr. 9, 2026 June 8, 2026 Class Certification: Deadline for Amazon's May 26, 2026 July 27, 2026 Opposition to Class Certification Motion: Deadline for Plaintiffs' June 16, 2026 Aug. 17, 2026 Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Class Certification: Amazon is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yJrLaa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq. Michael Robert Reese, Esq. George V. Granade, II, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, Suite 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643‐0500 E-mail: cramirez@reesellp.com mreese@reesellp.com ggranade@reesellp.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 303‐0552 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com - and - Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682‐5600 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com rsolomon@tousley.com The Defendant is represented by: Charles C. Sipos, Esq. Mallory Gitt Webster, Esq. Thomas J. Tobin, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: (206) 359-8000 Facsimile: (206) 359-9000 E-mail: CSipos@perkinscoie.com MWebster@perkinscoie.com TTobin@perkinscoie.com AMAZON.COM INC: Court Dismisses Floyd Class Action -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN FLOYD, et al., v. AMAZON.COM INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01599-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Kymberly Evanson entered an order granting motion for reconsideration and dismissing case: The Court relies on counsel to be candid, by rule and by necessity. And as laid out in this order, the misrepresentations regarding Floyd have required the Court to revisit multiple prior orders entered in this case, noting numerous assumptions which no longer stand, and altering conclusions previously reached. Accordingly, the Court grants Apple's motion for reconsideration and as a result, dismisses this action. Floyd's individual claims have already been dismissed with prejudice, and this order denies any attempt to add additional named plaintiffs. Without a plaintiff remaining to prosecute this action, it must be dismissed, with prejudice as to Floyd (as already effected), and without prejudice to claims brought by any remaining putative class members. The Court agrees with Apple that these new facts undermine the Court's assumptions in that ruling and therefore the ruling should be reconsidered. For the reasons explained in this order, the Court will grant Apple's motion for reconsideration, and that reconsideration leads the Court to deny the motion for leave to amend the complaint and dismiss this action. The Court agrees with Apple. An accurate understanding of Floyd's position and counsel's misconduct in characterizing that position undermines parts of the Order that were key to its outcome. The Plaintiffs insist that if they had accurately represented Floyd's communications, the outcome of the Order would be the same, and that might be true if the information had been shared at the time. But it was not shared at that time, and in fact never voluntarily shared at any time. The Plaintiffs cite no authority obligating the Court to overlook that misconduct. To do so would give effect to only some of the "new facts" Apple asks the Court to consider; counsel’s lack of candor separates this case from every case cited by either party, and explains why the Court's assumptions as stated in the Order (and other orders) no longer stand. Because the motion was not brought with diligence, the Court cannot find good cause to modify the case schedule to permit either amendment or intervention, and the Court need not go further to consider whether to permit amendment or intervention under Rule 15 or Rule 24. Although filed in 2022, the putative class action has yet to materially advance, due in large part to the unfortunate detour of motions precipitated by the Plaintiffs' counsel's now well documented misrepresentations of the status of former class representative Steven Floyd. These unnecessary filings concerning Floyd's status sapped substantial Court time—a finite resource. Amazon.com operates a global e-commerce business, cloud computing services, and offers a variety of other products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mxTaaS at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-03861 (D. Minn., Oct. 7, 2025), is brought arising because the Defendant's Website (www.amazon.com)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 the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"). As a consequence of Plaintiffs experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on their behalf, Plaintiffs found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiffs full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiffs would like to, intend 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. 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 Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs are and have been legally blind and are therefore disabled. The Defendant is a major online retailer which offers apparel, electronics, and household goods for sale including, but not limited to, clothing, shoes, televisions, appliances, household goods, whole foods, beauty products, medical supplies, books, pet supplies, toys, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Rai Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Aadit Rai, as an individual on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-10, Case No. 25-2-23073-2 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. 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01905. The Plaintiff alleges the following violations on a class-wide basis in four causes of action against Amazon: failure to pay overtime wages in violation of RCW 49.46.130, failure to provide meal periods in violation of RCW 49.12 and WAC 296-126-092 and 296-131- 020, failure to provide rest breaks in violation of RCW 49.12 and WAC 296-126-092 and 296-131-020, willful withholding of wages in violation of RCW 49.52.050 and RCW 49.52.070.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hali M. Anderson, Esq. Allison Schubert, Esq. GRAHAM HOLLIS APC 3555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92103 Phone: 619.692.0800x8225 Email: handerson@grahamhollis.com aschubert@grahamhollis.com The Defendants are represented by: Sheehan Sullivan, Esq. Rebecca Lynch, Esq. David M. Rund, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Phone: 206.622.3150 Fax: 206.757.7700 Email: sheehansullivan@dwt.com rebeccalynch@dwt.com davidrund@dwt.com - and - Melissa K. Mordy, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 929 108th Ave NE Unit 1500 Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: 425.646.6194 Fax: 425.709.6094 Email: missymordy@dwt.com AMERICAN BENCH: Bennett Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- LIVINGSTON BENNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN BENCH CRAFT, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12286 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 8, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://americanbenchcraft.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. American Bench Craft, Ltd. owns a website known as Americanbenchcraft.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of leather wallets, belts, dog collars, sheaths, bracelets, and hats. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (718) 554-0237 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law AMERICAN HONDA: Modified Scheduling Order Entered in Shamman Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as QUINTIN SHAMMAM, Individually and on behalf of others, v. AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 3:24-cv-00648-H-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying the current schedule to allow the parties time to complete the limited discovery that has been the subject of ongoing discovery disputes prior completing the briefing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Accordingly, the Parties request the following modification of the case schedule: a. The class certification opposition date of Oct. 6, 2025 still stands with the Plaintiff's reply still due by Nov. 3, 2025. b. Nov. 10, 2025 – AHFC shall file any Daubert motion to exclude expert evidence submitted with the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. c. Dec. 15, 2025 – the Plaintiff shall file his opposition to AHFC's Daubert motion, and any Daubert motion to exclude expert evidence submitted with AHFC's opposition to the motion for class certification. d. Jan. 9, 2026 – AHFC shall file its reply in support of its Daubert motion, and its opposition to the Plaintiff's Daubert motion. e. Jan. 23, 2026 – The Plaintiff shall file his reply in support of his Daubert motion. f. Feb. 6, 2026, at 10:30 a.m. -- Hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and the Parties' Daubert motions to exclude expert evidence. American provides financial services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WQ01On at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Scott J. Hyman, Esq. Genevieve R. Walser-jolly, Esq. Stephanie G. Chau, Esq. Tomio Narita, Esq. R. Travis Campbell, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP 400 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (714) 557-3800 Facsimile: (714) 557-3347 E-mail: Scott.Hyman@wbd-us.com Genevieve.Walser-Jolly@wbd-us.com Stephanie.Chau@wbd-us.com Tomio.narita@wbd-us.com travis.campbell@wbd-us.com ANTHEM COMPANIES: Wins Summary Judgment v. Lazaar ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLIE LAZAAR and DONNA TROPEANO TIRINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, as a Collective and Class representative, v. THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC., EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE HMO, INC. d/b/a EMPIRE BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD HMO AND EMPIRE BLUE CROSS HMO, and HEALTHPLUS HP, LLC d/b/a EMPIRE BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD HEALTHPLUS AND EMPIRE BLUECROSS HEALTHPLUS, Case No. 1:22-cv-03075-JGLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke entered an order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs' motion is denied. Motions regarding class certification and de-certification are denied as moot. Motions to seal are granted. All claims are dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all outstanding ECFs and to close the case. The case is about whether registered nurses performing utilization review work using, in part, their medical-based knowledge, to independently approve claims, are properly classified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. On April 13, 2022, the Plaintiff Leslie Lazaar filed suit on behalf of herself and all other utilization review nurses who worked for Anthem in New York, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Plaintiff twice amended her Complaint on May 27, 2022 and July 15, 2022 to add additional defendants and allegations. On Jan. 24, 2025, Defendants moved to decertify the conditionally certified collective while Plaintiffs moved to certify the class, which Defendants oppose. Anthem is a national multi-line health insurance company that provides managed care programs and related services. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VQaN9P at no extra charge.[CC] APEX REALTY: Court Narrows Claims in Bell Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Erica Bell, et al., v. APEX Realty, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:24-cv-00157-ABA (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Adam B. Abelson entered an order as follows: 1. The motion to dismiss filed by Signature Club HOA will be denied. Therefore, counts 2 and 3 for negligence, count 4 for negligent management, and count 9 for private nuisance will continue against Signature Club HOA. 2. The motion to dismiss filed by Ryan Homes will be granted in part and denied in part. The motion will be granted in that count 2 for negligence, count 5 for negligent misrepresentation, and count 12 for implied warranty against Ryan Homes will be dismissed with prejudice as time barred. Count 10 for express warranty against Ryan Homes will also be dismissed with prejudice. The remainder of the motion will be denied. Therefore, count 7 for violation of the MCPA will continue against Ryan Homes. 3. The motion to dismiss filed by Delmarva will be granted in part and denied in part. The motion will be granted in that count 9 for private nuisance against Delmarva will be dismissed with prejudice. The remainder of the motion will be denied. Therefore, counts 2 and 3 for negligence will continue against Delmarva. 4. The motion to dismiss filed by Airvac will be granted in part and denied in part. The motion will be granted in that count 1 for strict products liability will be dismissed without prejudice and count 9 for private nuisance against Airvac will be dismissed with prejudice. Otherwise, the motion will be denied. Therefore, counts 2 and 3 for negligence will continue against Airvac. 5. The motion to dismiss filed by VIKA will be granted in part and denied in part. The motion will be granted in that count 9 for private nuisance against VIKA will be dismissed with prejudice. The remainder of the motion will be denied. Therefore, counts 2 and 3 for negligence will continue against VIKA. 6. The motion to dismiss filed by Caruso Homes, Signature Club Mgt., Signature 2016 Residential, and Apex Realty will be granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs "are current or past residents of a residential neighborhood in Accokeek, Prince George's County, Maryland called 'Signature Club.'" They allege that they have "suffer[ed] past and continuing harm in the form of property damage, flooding, sewage backup and intrusion of sewage into dwelling spaces and properties, noxious odors, environmental nuisance, financial damages, exposure to health hazards and personal injury, emotional and mental distress, and other damages due to Defendants' acts and omissions" in connection with the private sewage and wastewater system used within the Signature Club property, which Plaintiffs allege is defective. Apex is a full-service real estate company. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tB0aIk at no extra charge.[CC] APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit for Alleged Copyright Infringement -------------------------------------------------------------- Jackson Chen, writing for engadget, reports that just about a month after being accused of using pirated books to train its AI, Apple is facing another similar proposed class action lawsuit. As first reported by Bloomberg Law, two neuroscience professors from SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, NY, claimed that Apple used their "registered works without authorization." The neuroscientists, Susana Martinez-Conde and Stephen Macknik, said Apple trained its AI models using "shadow libraries" and "web-crawling software" that provide access to pirated, copyrighted books, including two of their own. In the previous class action lawsuit, a separate pair of authors also alleged that Apple committed copyright infringement when using published works to train Apple Intelligence models without consent. Apple isn't the only tech giant facing copyright lawsuits related to its AI, as OpenAI is in a similar situation after being sued by The New York Times for similar accusations. While these AI models are relatively new, there's already a case that may have set some precedent. Earlier this year, Anthropic settled a class action lawsuit by agreeing to pay $1.5 billion to 500,000 authors involved in the case, which revolved around copyright claims. [GN] ARAMARK CAMPUS: Bazemore Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Barbara Renaisance Hypatia Bazemore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARAMARK CAMPUS LLC; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV018436 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Sept. 30, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02826-DJC-CSK. The Plaintiff alleges nine separate causes of action for: Failure to Pay Wages Including Overtime; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Pay Timely Wages; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Violation of Labor Code Sections 221, 224, 300; Failure to Pay Reporting Time Pay; and Violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Eric Meckley, Esq. Sarah Zenewicz, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Phone: +1.415.442.1000 Fax: +1.415.442.1001 Email: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com - and - Curie Lee, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1400 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: +1.415.442.1000 Fax: +1.415.442.1001 Email: curie.lee@morganlewis.com ARB GAMING LLC: Harris Files Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arb Gaming LLC. The case is styled as Talisha Harris, individually, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Arb Gaming LLC doing business as: Modo, Case No. 1:25-cv-12004 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 3, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Arb Gaming LLC -- https://www.arbinteractive.com/ -- is a flagship free to play gaming platform, designed for thrill-seekers who crave casino action anywhere, anytime.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com ARB GAMING LLC: Kowalok Files Suit in N.D. Ohio ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARB Gaming, LLC. The case is styled as Michael Kowalok, individually, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ARB Gaming, LLC doing business as: MODO, Case No. 4:25-cv-02161 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 8, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. ARB Gaming, LLC doing business as Modo Casino -- https://www.arbinteractive.com/ -- is our flagship free to play gaming platform, designed for thrill-seekers who crave casino action anywhere, anytime.[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 ARBY'S RESTAURANT: Court Narrows Claims in Alongis Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joseph Alongis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-06593-NJC-LGD (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nusrat Choudhury entered an order denying in part and granting in part Arby's Motion to dismiss. The Motion to Dismiss the claims set forth in the Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) is denied without prejudice. The Volume Misrepresentation Claims relating to the Half Pound Sandwiches are dismissed with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6), and leave to amend those claims is denied under Rule 15(a)(2). The Motion to Dismiss all other claims set forth in the Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) is denied. Accordingly, the Amended Complaint brings plausible claims under Sections 349 and 350 against Arby's use of advertisements for the Non-Half Pound Sandwiches that allegedly misrepresented the volume of meat provided to consumers in purchased sandwiches, and I deny this portion of Arby’s Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The Plaintiff Joseph Alongis brings claims on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals against Defendant Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc. for its use of allegedly false and misleading advertisements to sell Arby's Classic Roast Beef, Double Roast Beef, Half Pound Roast Beef, Classic Beef 'N Cheddar, Double Beef 'N Cheddar, Half Pound Beef 'N Cheddar, and Smokehouse Brisket sandwiches, which allegedly misrepresented that the Sandwiches contain rare roast beef and contain at least double the amount of meat than what is actually sold to consumers. The Amended Complaint brings claims for violations of New York General Business Law. The Amended Complaint defines the first proposed class, the "Class" as: "All persons or entities that purchased a Classic Roast Beef, Double Roast Beef, Half Pound Roast Beef, Classic Beef 'N Cheddar, Double Beef 'N Cheddar, Half Pound Beef 'N Cheddar, and/or Smokehouse Brisket menu item from the website or mobile application for Arbys.com, Ubereats.com, Grubhub.com, Seamless.com, and/or Doordash.com, for pickup or delivery from an Arby's store located in the state of New York, during the period between Sept. 5, 2020, through the date of the final disposition of this action (the "Class")." The Amended Complaint defines the second proposed class, the "Subclass" as: "All persons or entities that purchased a Classic Roast Beef, Double Roast Beef, Half Pound Roast Beef, Classic Beef 'N Cheddar, Double Beef 'N Cheddar, Half Pound Beef 'N Cheddar, and/or Smokehouse Brisket menu item from inside or through the drive-through of an Arby's store, located in the state of New York, during the period between Sept. 5, 2020, through the date of the final disposition of this action (the "Subclass")." Arby's is an American fast food sandwich restaurant chain. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8QoJ7Y at no extra charge.[CC] ASHLEY FURNITURE: Floyd Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alexander Floyd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, LLC a foreign limited liability company doing business as ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC.; ASHLEY GLOBAL RETAIL, LLC, a foreign limited liability company doing business as ASHLEY; ASHLEY PACIFIC NORTHWEST, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; and DOES 1-20, Case No. 23-2-19765-8 KNT 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. 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01906. The Complaint purports to seek relief from Defendants related to Washington's Equal Pay and Opportunity Act, RCW 49.58.110, requiring certain disclosures in job postings. Specifically, the Complaint seeks damages for alleged violations of RCW 49.58.110; injunctive relief; and declaratory relief.[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: Matthew J. Macario, Esq. Catharine Morisset, 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: mmacario@fisherphillips.com cmorisset@fisherphillips.com jwood@fisherphillips.com ASPEN CORPORATION: Felton Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shana Felton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASPEN CORPORATION, INC. a/k/a ASPEN MEDIA, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-01068 (E.D. Tex., Sept. 30, 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") and common law. The Defendant violated the FLSA and common law by systematically failing to compensate its CSRs for work tasks completed before their scheduled shifts, when they were not logged into Defendant's timekeeping system. This timekeeping procedure resulted in CSRs not being paid for all overtime hours worked and in workweeks in which CSRs worked overtime, for straight time. More specifically, Defendant failed to compensate CSRs for the substantial time they spent turning on and booting up their computer and computer systems prior to clocking into Defendant's timekeeping system. The Defendant also violated the FLSA by failing to incorporate bonus pay and other non-discretionary remuneration into its CSRs' regular hourly rate calculation, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a remote non-exempt CSR from September 23, 2022 through June 9, 2025. The Defendant is headquartered in Lake Dallas, Texas, and employs hundreds of hourly remote employees in numerous states throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com AUTONATION INC: Justice Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christopher Justice, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AUTONATION, INC., RENTON H. IMPORTS, INC. d/b/a AUTONATION HONDA RENTON, a foreign corporation, and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 24-2-22716-4 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. 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01903. 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.[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 Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 442-9106 Fax: (206) 441-9711 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com - and - Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq. Kim D. Stephens, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 682-5600 Fax: (206) 682-2992 Email: rsolomon@tousley.com kstephens@tousley.com The Defendants are represented by: Catharine Morisset, Esq. Jeremy F. Wood, Esq. Christina Shin, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-682-2308 Facsimile: 206-682-7908 Email: cmorisset@fisherphillips.com jwood@fisherphillips.com cshin@fisherphillips.com AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Almeida Sues Over Unlawfully Charged Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Almeida, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated persons v. AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC. and AVALONBAY ASSEMBLY ROW, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-12884-FDS (D. Mass., Oct. 3, 2025), is brought against Defendants on the basis that AvalonBay has unlawfully charged and collected attorneys' fees and costs related to the process of evicting residential tenants, without ever obtaining a judgment in its favor, in violation of various provisions of Massachusetts law. The Plaintiff, and all those similarly situated, were assessed and paid unlawful charges for attorneys' fees related to the eviction process during the time period relevant to the present action ("Attorneys' Fees"). The Plaintiff, and all those similarly situated, were also assessed and paid unlawful charges for court costs related to the eviction process during the time period relevant to the present action ("Court Costs"). The charges for Attorneys' Fees and Court Costs shall be hereinafter collectively referred to as "Eviction Fees." Defendants assess Eviction Fees, in connection with any eviction case brought against their tenants, prior to the issuance of any judgment, order, or review of such fees by a court of law. Defendants post Eviction Fees on tenants' account ledgers as immediately due and owing, and accept payments for Eviction Fees, without providing to tenants any invoices, itemization of costs, or additional information to account for the Eviction Fees. The Defendants collect payments for Eviction Fees in a manner that allocates all tenants' payments to past due Eviction Fees (and other non-rent charges) before applying such payments to a tenants' most recently monthly rent, leaving tenants in a position where they must pay the Eviction Fees or else face an allegation that they are behind on their rent. Massachusetts law does not allow for such Eviction Fees to be assessed unilaterally without a judgment in the landlord's favor and court approval of the amount to be awarded. As such, Plaintiff, and the putative class of all those similarly situated that she seeks to represent, have experienced harm as a result of the Defendants' unconscionable lease terms, the Defendants' breach of contract (or, in the alternative, enforcement of a lease term that is void as against public policy), and the Defendants' unfair and deceptive assessment of these unlawful fees in violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiff leased an apartment from Defendants. AvalonBay Assembly Row, Inc., is, upon information and belief, a foreign corporation registered to conduct business in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Harris, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Phone: 919-600-5000 Fax: 919-600-5035 Email: sharris@brysonpllc.com - and - Courtney Libon, Esq. Kristen Bor-Zale, Esq. GREATER BOSTON LEGAL SERVICES 60 Gore Street, Suite 203 Cambridge, MA 02141 Phone: 617-603-2711 Email: clibon@gbls.org - and - Sean Ahern, Esq. LEGAL SERVICES CENTER OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL 122 Boylston St. Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 Phone: (617) 384-0071 sahern@law.harvard.edu - and - Edward H. Maginnis, Esq. MAGINNIS HOWARD 7706 Six Forks Road, Suite 101 Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 Phone: 919-526-0450 Fax: 919-882-8763 Email: emaginnis@maginnislaw.com AWE.BJECT LLC: Bennett Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- LIVINGSTON BENNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AWE.BJECT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12288 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 8, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://studiocult.co, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Awe.Bject, LLC owns a website known as Studiocult.co, which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including the ability to view a variety of necklaces and rings, as well as earrings like studs, hoops, and ear cuffs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (718) 554-0237 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law B&G FOODS: Hourly Workers Receive Class Action Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------- The Yadkin Ripple reports that hourly workers at the B&G Foods plant in Yadkinville have received compensation from a class action lawsuit filed in 2023 for alleged wage and hour violations. The legal action, initiated by Jesse Talton, challenged company practices related to labor cost reductions and timekeeping procedures. After nearly two years of litigation, the case concluded with a $165,000 settlement agreement. According to public records and legal filings, every hourly production employee at the facility received a settlement check in September as part of the resolution. The lawsuit also prompted procedural changes at the company, including updates to how employee time is recorded. [GN] BAI BRANDS: Bid to Seal Class Exhibits Temporarily Granted ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kouyate v. Bai Brands, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03993-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arun Subramanian entered an order temporarily granting motion to seal: -- The Defendant requests that the designated portions of Exhibits 4–6, 18–20, and 24–26 to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, as well as the designated portions of Defendant's motion and separate statement of undisputed material facts in support of its motion for summary judgment ("SUF") that refer to or describe these documents and other confidential material. The Court will assess whether to keep the materials at issue sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motions. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 96. Bai produces beverages for health-conscious consumers. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rPvw8p at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Cheryl Cauley, Esq. BAKER BOTTS LLP 1001 Page Mill Road Building One, Suite 200 Palo Alto, CA Telephone: (650) 739-7557 Facsimile: (650) 739-7657 E-mail: cheryl.cauley@bakerbotts.com BASSETT HEALTHCARE: Court Withdraws Browning Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Browning v. Bassett Healthcare Network, Case No. 6:23-cv-01514 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 1, 2023), the Hon. Judge Lawrence E. Kahn entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to withdraw motion for conditional certification as follows. -- Leave to withdraw a motion without prejudice may be granted in the absence of a showing of prejudice to other parties. -- There is no prejudice to other parties. Defendants have not opposed this motion, and both Plaintiff and Defendant aver that a settlement has been reached. -- The motion to certify class is thus withdrawn without prejudice. The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Bassett provides health care to patients.[CC] BBBB BONDING: Class Cert Fact Discovery Due July 10, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Benton v. BBBB Bonding Corp., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01294 (E.D. Cal., Filed May 3, 2024), the Hon. Judge Dena M. Coggins entered an order as follows: -- Fact discovery shall be completed by July 10, 2026 -- Expert disclosures shall be completed by Aug. 10, 2026 -- Rebuttal expert disclosures shall be completed by Sept 8, 2026 -- Expert discovery shall be completed by Oct. 5, 2026 -- A Joint Mid-Litigation Statement shall be filed by Feb. 3, 2026 -- The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be filed by Feb. 17, 2026 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). [CC] BEIERSDORF INC: Albino Suit Removed to S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Beatriz Albino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BEIERSDORF, INC., Case No. 815822/2025E was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County, to the United States District Court for Southern District of New York on Oct. 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-08230. In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Beiersdorf "misbranded" its "Aquaphor lip repair ointment" (the "Product") by promoting it as having "No preservatives." Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that the phrase "No preservatives" is allegedly inaccurate because the Product contains Tocopheryl Acetate and Sodium Ascorbyl Phosphate, which Plaintiff contends "tend to, do and/or can, function to prevent its deterioration."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Steven R. Campbell, Esq. Matthew Atha, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 90 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016-1387 Phone: 212-210-9400 Fax: 212-210-9444 Email: steven.campbell@alston.com matthew.atha@alston.com - and - Elizabeth M. Chiarello, Esq. Caitlin A. Maly, Esq. Matthew D. Binder, Esq. 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3900 Chicago, IL 60606-5085 Phone: 312-702-8700 Email: elizabeth.chiarello@alston.com caitlin.maly@alston.com matt.binder@alston.com BELKORP AG LLC: Jones Files Suit in E.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Belkorp Ag, LLC. The case is styled as Marland Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Belkorp Ag, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-02856-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal., Oct. 3, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Belkorp Ag -- https://www.belkorpag.com/ -- is proud to offer a complete line of John Deere agricultural, golf, and turf equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 92102 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com BELL PARTNERS: Morehouse Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Gena Morehouse, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BELL PARTNERS, INC., A NORTH CAROLINA CORPORATION; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 60, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 25STCV22367 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. 6, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-09530. The Complaint alleges one cause of action on behalf of the Plaintiff individually and on behalf of other similarly situated tenants: Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Erik K. Swanholt, Esq. Nicholas M. Gross, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 555 South Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2418 Phone: 213.972.4500 Facsimile: 213.486.0065 Email: eswanholt@foley.com ngross@foley.com - and - John P. Riley, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 11988 El Camino Real, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92130-3579 Phone: 858.847.6700 Facsimile: 858.792.6773 Email: jp.riley@foley.com BESTWAY USA INC: Piceno Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Pete Piceno, Shannon Gannon, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. Bestway USA Inc., Bestway Hong Kong International Ltd., Bestway Inflatables and Material Corp., Case No. 2:25-cv-07878 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 Illinois on Oct. 8, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-12315 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for Other Contract. Bestway -- https://bestwayusa.com/ -- manufactures a wide range of inflatable outdoor and recreational products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Luke Iverson Landers, Esq. HILGERS GRABEN, PLLC 27001 Agoura Road Suite 350 Calabasas, CA 91301 Phone: (310) 692-8385 Fax: (402) 413-1880 Email: llanders@hilgersgraben.com The Defendants are represented by: Yi Yang, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLLP 555 South Flower Street, Forty-First Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 892-9311 Email: eva.yang@nortonrosefulbright.com BETTER RISE CAPITA: Soto Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Better Rise Capital LLC. The case is styled as Jesse Soto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Better Rise Capital LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-02835-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal., Oct. 1, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Better Rise Capital -- https://betterrisecapital.com/ -- helps businesses grow with flexible business loans.[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 BETTER RISE: Kesterson Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- Leslie A. Kesterson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BETTER RISE CAPITAL LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-01095-FB (W.D. Tex., Sept. 2, 2025), is brought against Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") for making telemarketing calls to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, including those using pre-recorded messages. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of Defendant. At no point has Plaintiff sought out or solicited information regarding Defendant's products or services prior to receiving the telephone calls at issue. The Plaintiff has never consented to receive telephone calls from Defendant. Despite this, Plaintiff has received numerous prerecorded robocalls calls from Defendant. The calls were initiated for purposes of marketing Defendant's loans & commercial financing related products, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual who resides in this District. Better Rise Capital LLC is a limited liability company that resides in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leland Garrett McRae, Esq. 1150 N. Loop 1604 W, Ste. 108-461 San Antonio, TX 78248 Phone: (248) 420-4042 Fax: (210) 493-608 Email: leland@lelandmcrae.com BFC SOLUTIONS: Strickland Suit Removed to D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jimmy Strickland, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BFC SOLUTIONS, Case No. 25-1163-III was removed from the Chancery Court of Davidson County, Tennessee Twentieth Judicial District, at Nashville, to the United States District Court for Middle District of Tennessee on Oct. 1, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01122. The Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that BFC Solutions failed to secure and protect Plaintiff's and the class members' Personal Identifiable Information ("PII") that BFC Solutions collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices. The Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action in the Complaint: Negligence; Negligence Per Se; Unjust Enrichment; Invasion of Privacy; Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Breach of Implied Contract; and Declaratory Judgment.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jimmie C. Miller, BPR No. 009756 HUNTER, SMITH & DAVIS, LLP P.O. Box 3740 1212 North Eastman Road Kingsport, TN 37664 Phone: 423-378-8852 Facsimile: 423-378-8801 Email: jmiller@hsdlaw.com BH MANAGEMENT SERVICES: Deleon Files Suit in E.D. Virginia ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BH Management Services, LLC. The case is styled as Isabel Deleon, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals v. BH Management Services, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00818-RCY (E.D. Va., Oct. 3, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. BH Management Services, LLC -- https://livebh.com/ -- is a real estate company located in San Antonio, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. Casey Shannon Nash, Esq. James Patrick McNichol, Esq. Matthew G. Rosendahl, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: (703) 424-7570 Fax: (703) 591-9285 Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com casey@kellyguzzo.com pat@kellyguzzo.com matt@kellyguzzo.com BIG AGNES INC: Bennett Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Livingston Bennett, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Big Agnes, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-12102 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 3, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.bigagnes.com (hereinafter "Bigagnes.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Bigagnes.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Big Agnes provides to the public a website known as Bigagnes.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of tents, shelters, sleeping bags, insulation pads, and camping accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law BONEFIDE PRODUCTIONS: Tehrani Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bonefide Productions, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Josephine Tehrani, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. Bonefide Productions, LLC, Nightcall Productions, Case No. 25STCV28434 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 24, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Bonefide -- https://bonefide.com/ -- is a full service union producer, who offers an innovative approach to managing and coordinating media productions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank H. Kim, Esq. KIM LEGAL, APC 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2013 Phone: 323-482-3300 Email: fkim@kim-legal.com BOOM SHAKALAKA: Abbot Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boom Shakalaka, Inc. The case is styled as Nicholas Abbot, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Boom Shakalaka, Inc. doing business as: Boom Fantasy, Case No. 1:25-cv-12004 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 1, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Boom Shakalaka, Inc., doing business as Boom Fantasy -- https://www.boomfantasy.com/ -- operates as a video game software company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com BOYD GAMING: Cazau-Degenova Sues Over Recent Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- Candice Cazau-Degenova, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BOYD GAMING CORPORATION, Case No. 2:25-cv-01868 (D. Nev., Oct. 1, 2025), is brought arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against the Defendant that involved Plaintiff's and the proposed Class Members personally identifying information. On September 6, 2025, Defendant experienced a data breach that resulted in an unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of highly personal information in the possession and custody and/or control of Defendant (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiff and proposed Class Members' information impacted includes their personally identifying information ("PII"). The PII compromised in the Data Breach included, at the minimum, Plaintiff's and Class Members' name, date of birth, and Social Security number. Upon information and belief, and unauthorized actor had unfettered access and acquired Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII from the Defendant's systems from September 5, 2025 to September 7, 2025. The Defendant became aware of the Data Breach on September 6, 2025, but waited until September 24, 2025, to inform the victims of the Data breach via letter ("Notice Letter"). Given the Defendant's failure in protecting Plaintiff's and Class Members PII, it is likely that Defendant's cybersecurity program as a whole is severely inadequate in comparison to the measures it is legally obligated to provide to individuals for whom it collects PII, thus leaving them exposed to the Data Breach that indeed came into fruition. The Defendant's failure in even the most basic requirements of cybersecurity, it is likely that Defendant's cybersecurity program as a whole is severely inadequate in comparison to the measures it is legally obligated to provide to individuals for whom it collects PII, thus leaving them exposed to the Data Breach that indeed came into fruition, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Boyd Gaming corporation. The Defendant is a multi-billion-dollar casino entertainment company based in Las Vegas, Nevada, and is "one of the largest and most respected casino entertainment companies in the Unites States" with "28 gaming properties in ten states."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Blvd., Ste. 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Phone: (725) 235-9750 Email: nring@stranchlaw.com - and - Grayson Wells, Esq. John C. Roberts, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gwells@stranchlaw.com jroberts@stranchlaw.com BOYD GAMING: Furman Sues Over Recent Data Security Incident ----------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Furman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BOYD GAMING CORPORATION, Case No. 2:25-cv-01851 (D. Nev., Sept. 30, 2025), is brought arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against the Defendant that involved Plaintiff's and the proposed Class Members personally identifying information. On September 6, 2025, Defendant experienced a data breach that resulted in an unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of highly personal information in the possession and custody and/or control of Defendant (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiff and proposed Class Members' information impacted includes their personally identifying information ("PII"). The PII compromised in the Data Breach included, at the minimum, Plaintiff's and Class Members' name, date of birth, and Social Security number. Upon information and belief, and unauthorized actor had unfettered access and acquired Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII from the Defendant's systems from September 5, 2025 to September 7, 2025. The Defendant became aware of the Data Breach on September 6, 2025, but waited until September 24, 2025, to inform the victims of the Data breach via letter ("Notice Letter"). Given the Defendant's failure in protecting Plaintiff's and Class Members PII, it is likely that Defendant's cybersecurity program as a whole is severely inadequate in comparison to the measures it is legally obligated to provide to individuals for whom it collects PII, thus leaving them exposed to the Data Breach that indeed came into fruition. The Defendant's failure in even the most basic requirements of cybersecurity, it is likely that Defendant's cybersecurity program as a whole is severely inadequate in comparison to the measures it is legally obligated to provide to individuals for whom it collects PII, thus leaving them exposed to the Data Breach that indeed came into fruition, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Boyd Gaming corporation. The Defendant is a multi-billion-dollar casino entertainment company based in Las Vegas, Nevada, and is "one of the largest and most respected casino entertainment companies in the Unites States" with "28 gaming properties in ten states."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Blvd., Ste. 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Phone: (725) 235-9750 Email: nring@stranchlaw.com - and - Grayson Wells, Esq. John C. Roberts, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gwells@stranchlaw.com jroberts@stranchlaw.com BOYD GAMING: Jackson Files Suit in D. Nevada -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boyd Gaming Corporation. The case is styled as Julie Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Boyd Gaming Corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-01853-GMN-EJY (D. Nev., Oct. 1, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Boyd Gaming Corporation -- https://www.boydgaming.com/ -- is one of the nation's leading casino entertainment companies.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street, 6th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 221-6583 Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com BOYKIN LIMITED: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. BOYKIN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; EL TROPICO RESTAURANT CAFETERIA, INC.; CATRINA RESTAURANT, CORP; and SANDAN CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-24596-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 33 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 is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, 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. EL TROPICO RESTAURANT CAFETERIA, INC., owned and/or operated a commercial restaurant business within the Commercial Property.[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 BRAND I101: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Advertised Soap --------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Valitic Kojic Acid Dark Spot Remover Soap is "scientifically incapable" of providing the advertised dark spot-removing benefits, and that the product's marketing violates Food and Drug Administration regulations for over-the-counter medications. The 25-page lawsuit claims that not only does the Valitic Kojic Acid Dark Spot Remover Soap lack the required FDA approval to be lawfully marketed as a treatment for various skin conditions (including dark spots, scarring, acne, sun damage and wrinkles), but that the product simply cannot provide any kind of treatment for those conditions, and may even harm a user's skin. Per the complaint, any item "intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease" is classified as a drug under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). As such, the filing argues, Valitic's claims that its soap can treat conditions like hyperpigmentation, acne, wrinkles, sun damage and scars means the product is classified as a drug requiring FDA approval to be sold. Despite this, Valitic has neither applied for nor received FDA approval, the lawsuit claims, alleging the company's Kojic Acid Dark Spot Remover Soap is therefore on the market illegally as a misbranded and unapproved new drug, per FDCA definitions. The complaint also notes that skin-bleaching drugs, such as those claiming to treat hyperpigmentation, dark spots and other similar blemishes, are not permitted by the FDA to be sold over the counter. Furthermore, the lawsuit continues, all the statements made by Valitic about its Kojic Acid Dark Spot Remover Soap are not accompanied by a legally mandated disclaimer that explains, "These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease." Finally, the complaint alleges that the Valitic Kojic Acid Dark Spot Remover Soap is scientifically incapable of providing the advertised results due to insufficient time spent in contact with the user's skin as a result of its nature as a rinse-off soap, and that the soap may, in fact, damage the skin due to its destructively alkaline pH level. The Valitic class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone in the United States who bought the Valitic Kojic Acid Dark Spot Remover Soap for personal, family or household use and not for resale within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] BRANDEN MARTIN: Walker Suit Seeks to Certify Classes ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reuben D. Walker, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, v. Branden Martin, Treasurer of Peoria County, Illinois, in his official capacity, and as representative of a class of all County Treasurers of the State of Illinois in their official capacity, Michael W. Frerichs, Treasurer of the State of Illinois in his official capacity, and Tim Brophy, Treasurer of Will County, Illinois and Maria Pappas, Treasurer of Cook County Illinois, in their official capacity, Case No. 1:25-cv-01378-JEH-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a plaintiff class and a class of all defendants other than the defendant Michael W. Frerichs. Plaintiff Class: "All persons or entities (including their heirs, assignees, legal representatives, guardians, administrators, and successors in interest) who previously paid the facially unconstitutional add-on court filing fees imposed on them under 735 ILCS 5/15-1504.1 et seq. (West 2012) and any or all later amendments or modifications of said legislation." Defendant Class: "All of the 102 County Treasurers of the counties in the State of Illinois." The Plaintiffs' lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of Illinois legislation which imposed a non-court-related "add-on" court filing fee on all mortgage foreclosure filings within the State of Illinois. In 2020 the circuit court found this litigation tax to be facially unconstitutional. In 2021 the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the ruling and held the legislation to be facially unconstitutional in derogation of the Free Access Clause and void for all purposes. Mr. Walker challenges the constitutionality of the legislation which imposed an add-on filing fee on all mortgage foreclosure actions filed within the State of Illinois. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bYWTCG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: George S. Bellas, Esq. BELLAS & WACHOWSKI 15 N. Northwest Highway Park Ridge, IL 60068 Telephone: (847) 823-9032 E-mail: george@bellas-wachowski.com - and - Daniel K. Cray, Esq. Michael D. Huber, Esq. CRAY HUBER HORSTMAN HEIL & VanAUSDAL 303 W. Madison Street, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 332-8450 E-mail: dkc@crayhuber.com mdh@crayhuber.com BRAVO CARE: Wilson Files Suit in Philadelphia Ct. of Common Pleas ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bravo Care, et al. The case is styled as Shakira Wilson, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated v. Bravo Care, an unincorporated partnership, Andrew Toobi, Jeffrey Toobi, Case No. 251001062 (Philadelphia Ct. of Common Pleas, Oct. 8, 2025). Bravo Care -- https://bravocare.com/ -- is a marketplace for healthcare workers and facilities that provides on-demand per-diem solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Goodley, Esq. GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 394-0541 Email: james@gmlaborlaw.com BRIGHTSTAR GLOBAL: Mena Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brightstar Global Solutions Corporation. The case is styled as Manuel Mena, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Brightstar Global Solutions Corporation, Case No. 25STCV29268 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 3, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Brightstar -- https://www.brightstarlottery.com/ -- is the global leader you know and can count on, with a laser focus on what we do best: lottery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason W. Rothman, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-438-5555 Fax: 310-300-1705 Email: Jason@tomorrowlaw.com BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPES: Roberts Suit Removed to W.D. Washington -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Britton Roberts, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPES, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Case No. 25-2-08212-7 was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for Pierce County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Oct. 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05894. On May 1, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a complaint entitled "Class Action Complaint for Discrimination Based on Defendant's Violations of Washington's Wage Transparency Law. The Complaint purports to seek relief related to Washington's Equal Pay and Opportunities Act, 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: Craig J. Ackermann, Esq. Brian Denlinger, Esq. Avi Kreitenberg, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C. 2602 North Proctor Street, Suite 205 Tacoma, WA 98406 Phone: 310.277.0614 Fax: 310.277.0635 Email: cja@ackermanntilajef.com bd@ackermanntilajef.com ak@ackermanntilajef.com The Defendants are represented by: Matthew J. Macario, Esq. Sieu Che, 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: mmacario@fisherphillips.com sche@fisherphillips.com jwood@fisherphillips.com BROOKS AUTOMATION: Deol Sues Over Unlawful Surveillance ------------------------------------------------------- Gurmit Deol, an individual, and others similarly situated v. BROOKS AUTOMATION US, LCC, a Massachusetts company; DOES 1 through 15, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01508189-CU-MC-NJC – ROA (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., Sept. 2, 2025), is brought against Defendant who deliberately transformed its commercial website, www.brooks.com (the "Website"), into a sophisticated surveillance apparatus in violations of the California Trap and Trace Law. The Defendant secretly deploys invasive tracking technology that violates California law. Specifically, Defendant deploys LinkedIns tracking software, known as the "LinkedIn Insight Tag." Defendant actively configured this code to enable the secret identification, tracking, and profiling of unsuspecting visitors by LinkedIn, all without their knowledge or consent. Defendant engineered this system to strip visitors of their anonymity and to facilitate the compilation of detailed personal profiles to advance its objective of mercenary surveillance. The Defendant activated its surveillance system against Plaintiff while Plaintiff browsed within California. Defendant, through this system, captured comprehensive identifying information from Plaintiff without Plaintiff's awareness or consent. The Defendant configured its tracking system to immediately initiate data collection upon each visitor's arrival on its Website. The LinkedIn Insight Tag captures electronic impulses and digital signatures from visitors' devices to de-anonymize website visitors and create unique identification profiles. The Defendant's unauthorized deployment and continuous operation of this digital surveillance technology constitutes a direct violation of California's Trap and Trace Law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff visited Defendant's Website on April 21, 2025. The Defendant operates the Website to market and sell athletic footwear, apparel, and related products directly to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. Camrie Ventry, Esq. Kiran Sekhon, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 927-9270 Email: eshapiro@taulersmith.com cventry@taulersmith.com ksekhon@taulersmith.com C-STORE SERVICES INC: Reyes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against C-Store Services, Inc. The case is styled as Rebecca Reyes, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. C-Store Services, Inc., Case No. 25CV06147 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Barbara Cty., Sept. 30, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Other Employment." C-Store Services, Inc. -- https://cstoreservicesllc.com/ -- operate retail gasoline service stations along with convenience and grocery stores under the well-recognized brands, Extra Mile and Power Market.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92318 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 CALIDAD INDUSTRIES: Alvarez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Calidad Industries, Inc. The case is styled as Hector Cardenas Alvarez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Calidad Industries, Inc., Case No. 25CV145617 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Sept. 25, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Calidad Industries provides employment and life skills training to persons living with physical, mental, and psychological impairments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Harteker, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 6200 Canoga Ave. 470, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: 818-914-3433 Email: rebecca@frontierlawcenter.com CAMPER ATLANTIC CORP: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Camper Atlantic Corp., Case No. 0:25-cv-03815 (D. Minn., Oct. 1, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.camper.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 and accessories for sale including, but not limited to shoes, boots, heels, platforms, sandals, sneakers, slippers, 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 CAMPER'S INN INC: Campuzan Files Suit in N.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Camper's Inn Inc. The case is styled as George Campuzan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Camper's Inn Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-00289-MW-MJF (N.D. Fla., Oct. 8, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Campers Inn RV -- https://campersinn.net/ -- is the nation's largest family-operated RV dealer with multiple locations across the U.S.[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 CAPITAL OB/GYN INC: Lipunov Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital OB/GYN, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Julia Lipunov, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Capital OB/GYN, Inc., Does 1-50, Case No. 25CV023191 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Sept. 30, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Capital OB/GYN, Inc. -- https://www.capitalobgyn.com/ -- is a women's health clinic in Sacramento, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriella Sol, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-381-9988 Fax: 213-381-9989 Email: gabriella.sole@wilshirelawfirm.com CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL: Shah Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Vishal Shah, Gary Ingraham, Deia Williams, Devin Rose, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Capital One Financial Corporation doing business as: Capital One doing business as: Capital One, N.A. doing business as: Capital One Shopping, Case No. 3:24-cv-05985 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on Oct. 6, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-mc-01614-DAE to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Motion to Quash. Capital One Financial Corporation -- https://www.capitalone.com/ -- is an American bank holding company specializing in credit cards, auto loans, banking, and savings accounts, headquartered in Tysons, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brittany N. Resch, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: bresch@straussborrelli.com CAPITAL ONE SERVICES: Wilmoth Sues Over Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------- Erin Wilmoth, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CAPITAL ONE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00825 (E.D. Va., Oct. 7, 2025), is brought for unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act ("VOWA") for the Defendant's failure to pay overtime premiums to individuals it employed as customer service representatives called Customer Advocates. Before she was reclassified to hourly-nonexempt, the Plaintiff was told that as a salaried employee, she was expected to get her work done even though it would take more than 40 hours per week. Based on the amount of work given to, and expectations of, Customer Advocates at Capital One, the Plaintiff was not able to get all her work done within 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff was told that she was not expected to get all her work done within 40 hours per week. Capital One made it known to the Plaintiff that as a salaried employee, she was expected to work more than 40 hours per week, without receiving any additional compensation for such hours. the Plaintiff did not stop working for an uninterrupted 30-minute meal break during her work day, instead she ate her meals while working, Mondays through Fridays. Until Capital One reclassified its Customer Advocates in April/May 2025, Capital One misclassified the Plaintiff as "exempt" from overtime, and unilaterally deemed her as ineligible for, and did not pay her any, overtime compensation. At no time during Plaintiff's employment did the Plaintiff meet any overtime exemption under the FLSA or VOWA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a Customer Advocate at the time of her termination. Capital One Services, LLC is a limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. Harris D. Butler, III, Esq. Zev Antell, Esq. Samantha R. Galina, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Ste. 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 648-4848 Fax: (804) 237-0413 Email: craig@butlercurwood.com harris@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com samantha@butlercurwood.com CAPITAL ONE: Flesner Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jeffrey Robert Flesner, et al., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN CONTRACT SYSTEMS, LIEUTENANT JOHN DOE, Case No. 2:25-cv-03572 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 7, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01552-RJC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. Capital One Financial Corporation -- https://www.capitalone.com/ -- is an American bank holding company specializing in credit cards, auto loans, banking, and savings accounts, headquartered in Tysons, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward Ciarimboli, Esq. FELLERMAN & CIARIMBOLI 183 Market St., Suite 300 Kingston, PA 18704 Phone: (570) 718-1444 Email: ejc@fclawpc.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew L. Reissaus, Esq. HOLLINGSWORTH LLP 1350 I Street Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 898-5855 Email: areissaus@hollingsworthllp.com - and - Matthew J. Junk, Esq. TYSON & MENDES, LLP 919 Conestoga Rd. Building 3, Suite 210 Bryn Mawr, PA 19010 Phone: (267) 297-0014 Email: mjunk@tysonmendes.com CARD DELIVERY: Standing Order Entered in Shah Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vivek Shah, v. Card Delivery, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-08731-JFW-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Walter entered a standing order as follows: The plaintiff shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and shall file the proof(s) of service pursuant to the Local Rules. Lead trial counsel shall attend all proceedings before this Court and all Local Rule 7-3, scheduling, status, and settlement conferences. All discovery matters have been referred to a United States Magistrate Judge. Time for Filing and Hearing Motions: Motions shall be filed in accordance with the Local Rules. This Court hears motions on Mondays commencing at 1:30 p.m. Card sells Apple iTunes gift cards and game cards from different platforms. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zgSiEp at no extra charge.[CC] CAREMARKPCS HEALTH: Second Amended Class Complaint Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN FLOWERS, on behalf of himself and other Arkansans similarly situated v. CAREMARKPCS HEALTH, L.L.C. d/b/a CVS CAREMARK; and CAREMARK PCS PENNSYLVANIA MAIL PHARMACY, L.L.C., Case No. 4:24-cv-04031-SOH (W.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Susan O. Hickey entered an order granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss second amended class action complaint. Accordingly, the case is dismissed without prejudice. Because this case is being dismissed, the Court finds that the pending Motion to Certify Class, Motion to Compel, and Motion for Status Conference are denied as moot. The Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim is premised entirely on the allegation that Defendants violated the Network Adequacy and Mail Order Statutes and were unjustly enriched by this wrongful conduct. However, the Court has found that these two Arkansas statutes, as applied to the Holcim Plan, are preempted by ERISA. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engaged in wrongful conduct that is violative of two Arkansas statutes, and the Defendants are unjustly enriched because of their wrongful conduct. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are enriched through compensation in administering drug benefit plans in Arkansas and through profit derived from filling and dispensing prescriptions at their CVS retail pharmacy stores and mail-order pharmacy. CaremarkPCS provides pharmacy benefit management services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f4lzwT at no extra charge.[CC] CASEY'S RETAIL: Mason Suit Removed to S.D. Iowa ----------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kit Mason, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Casey's Retail Company, Casey's General Stores, Inc., Casey's Marketing Company, Case No. CVCV069792 was removed from the Polk County, Iowa, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa on Sept. 26, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00361-SMR-SBJ to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Federal Trade Commission Act (Unfair or Deceptive Acts). Casey's Retail Company -- https://www.caseys.com/ -- is a chain of convenience stores in the Midwestern and Southern United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brian O. Marty, Esq. SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Phone: (515) 223-4567 Fax: (515) 223-8887 Email: goplerud@sagwlaw.com marty@sagwlaw.com CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Diaz Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Luis Diaz, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. CENTRAL TRANSPORT LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2521497 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Oct. 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02611. The Plaintiff seeks to recover waiting time penalties for Defendant's alleged failure to pay Plaintiff all wages upon separation of his employment with Defendant. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements as required by California Labor Code section 226 and seeks penalties pursuant to Labor Code section 226(e). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to provide him with meal and rest periods during his employment. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay minimum wages for all hours worked. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay overtime wages for all overtime hours worked.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christian J. Keeney, Esq. Alis Moon, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 885-1360 Facsimile: (949) 885-1380 Email: Christian.Keeney@jacksonlewis.com Alis.Moon@jacksonlewis.com - and - Semarnpreet Kaur, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 3390 University Avenue, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92501 Phone: (951) 848-7940 Facsimile: (951) 848-0009 Email: Semarnpreet.Kaur@jacksonlewis.com CERNER CORPORATION: Tripp Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Ronald M. Tripp, Laura E. Tripp, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cerner Corporation doing business as: Oracle Health Inc., Arkansas Heart Hospital LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00979 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Sept. 30, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00766-BP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Cerner Corporation doing business as Oracle Health -- https://www.oracle.com/ -- is a US-based, multinational provider of health information technology platforms and services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Grayson Wells, Esq. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - James A. Streett, Esq. STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A. 107 West Main Russellville, AR 72801 Phone: (479) 968-2030 Email: james@streettlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Benjamin D. Jackson, Esq. John Keeling Baker, Esq. MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD PLLC 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 688-8800 Email: bjackson@mwlaw.com jbaker@mwlaw.com - and - Elizabeth Esparza, Esq. MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD PLLC 4206 South J.B. Hunt Drive, Suite 200 Rogers, AR 72758 Phone: (479) 464-5660 Email: eesparza@mwlaw.com CHANEL INC: Dale Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Pamela Felicia Dale, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CHANEL, INC., Case No. 25STCV23231 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. 2:25-cv-09410. On August 6, 2025, plaintiff filed a purported class action complaint setting forth a single violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, specifically California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 ("UCL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey B. Margulies, Esq. Eva Yang, Esq. Nicole Zelada, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 555 South Flower Street, Forty-First Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 892-9200 Facsimile: (213) 892-9494 Email: jeff.margulies@nortonrosefulbright.com eva.yang@nortonrosefulbright.com nicole.zelada@nortonrosefulbright.com CHARLES RIVER LABORATORIES: Mendez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charles River Laboratories Cell Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Irene Alvarado Mendez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Charles River Laboratories Cell Solutions, Inc., Case No. 25STCV28622 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 29, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Charles River Cell Solutions -- https://www.criver.com/ -- provides research-use and GMP-compliant human immune and stem cells to support basic research and advanced therapy development.[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 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Maharaj Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEVANAN MAHARAJ, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees of Defendants in the State of California, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-00064-BJC-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cheeks entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted in part and denied in part. The Court grants class certification as to the following class and subclasses: "All current and former non-exempt Maintenance Technicians who worked in California for the Defendant or its predecessor between Nov. 5, 2016 and the date of the certification order, and who are not bound by an arbitration agreement ("Class Members")." Regular Rate Meal and Rest Premium Subclass – consisting of: "all Class Members whose wage statements show that they received a meal or rest period premium during the same workweek in which they were paid on-call pay and overtime." Regular Rate Overtime Subclass – consisting of: "all Class Members whose wage statements show that they received on-call pay during the same workweek in which they were paid overtime." Waiting Time Penalties Subclass – consisting of: "all members of the Regular Rate Meal and Rest Premium Subclass and Regular Rate Overtime Subclass, as defined herein, who separated employment at least once at any time from November 5, 2016 to the date of the certification order." The motion is denied as to the remaining subclasses. 2. The Plaintiff's motion to file unredacted exhibits under seal is granted. 3. The Defendant's motion for sanctions is denied. 4. The Defendant's motion to file unredacted exhibits under seal is granted. The Court finds addressing the common issue of the Defendant's purported miscalculation of regular time pay as a class action promotes the efficient use of the parties' and Court's resources. Therefore, a class action is the superior method for adjudicating the regular time pay claims. The Plaintiff meets the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements of predominance and superiority. Charter is an American telecommunications and mass media company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9PsKc2 at no extra charge.[CC] CHILDREN'S PLACE INC: Watler Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Children's Place, Inc. The case is styled as Kededra Watler, Rotanza Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Children's Place, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-09325 (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. The Children's Place -- https://www.childrensplace.com/us/ -- is a retailer of clothing for children.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 CHRISTINA PABST: Anheuser-Busch Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. CHRISTINA PABST, an individual; on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. L24-04434 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Oct. 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-08430-LB. This action involves Pabst's claims related to Anheuser-Busch's alleged failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, provide meal periods and rest periods, failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties, unfair business practices, and reimbursement of business expenses. Pabst claims she should have been paid for said wage and hour violations but she was misclassified as an exempt employee. Pabst's Prayer for Relief seeks an award of compensatory damages, statutory damages and penalties, an injunction, reimbursement, attorneys' fees and costs of suit, liquidated damages, and interest.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David H. Stern, Esq. Alex Spjute, Esq. Jennifer D. Ghassemi, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310.820.8800 Facsimile: 310.820.8859 Email: dstern@bakerlaw.com aspjute@bakerlaw.com jghassemi@bakerlaw.com CLEVELAND ATKINSON: Myrick Seeks Conditional Cert of Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOEROAM MYRICK, as an INDIVIDUAL and as Representative on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CLEVELAND ATKINSON, Jr, AS SHERIFF OF EDGECOMBE COUNTY; COUNTY OF EDGECOMBE; and DOES 1-20, Inclusive; Case No. 4:20-cv-00139-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and to facilitate an FLSA notice to: "All potential class members of their statutory right to opt into this case, for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Conditionally Certify a Collective Action and to Facilitate Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S. C. section 216(b), and in the exhibits and declarations." The potential class members include: "All current and former non-exempt hourly paid employees of the Sheriff of County of Edgecombe and/or Edgecombe County, who were underpaid by virtue of working as sheriff's deputies pursuant to annual work-schedules based on thirteen (13) payroll periods (consisting of 28 days each) but only receiving twelve (12) payments annually, anytime from July 16, 2017, to the date this practice ends or ended." Conditional certification of an FLSA collective action is appropriate because Plaintiff has set forth substantial allegations with documentary evidence to establish that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated potential Plaintiffs minimum wages and overtime wages. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EDvkMx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alvin L. Pittman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ALVIN L. PITTMAN 5777 West Century Boulevard, Suite 1685 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 337-3077 Facsimile: (310) 337-3080 E-mail: office@apittman-law.com COLUMBUS DENTAL CORP: Brooks Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Columbus Dental Corp. The case is styled as Shatara Brooks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Columbus Dental Corp. d/b/a 24/7 Dental, Case No. 1:25-cv-02015-JPH-TAB (S.D. Ind., Oct. 2, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Columbus Dental Group -- https://www.columbusdentalgroup.com/ -- offers dental services from your youngest family member to your oldest family member in one convenient location.[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 COMMODORE CONSTRUCTION: Dutton Sues Over WARN Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Mark Dutton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. COMMODORE CONSTRUCTION CORP., Case No. 7:25-cv-08153 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2025), is brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the "WARN Act"), and 90 days' notice as required by the New York State Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("NY WARN Act") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") (collectively, the "WARN Acts"), seeking to enforce the WARN Act's statutory remedy of 60 days' back pay and benefits for the Defendant's failure to provide WARN notice prior to their terminations. The Plaintiff was terminated along with an estimated 400 other similarly situated employees as part of, or as the foreseeable result of a mass layoff or plant closing ordered by Defendant on or about September 30, 2025, and within 90 days of that date. The Defendant failed to give Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees of Defendant at least 60 days' advance notice of their terminations, as required by the WARN Acts, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Senior Project Manager. The Defendant is a company engaged in the construction business in the state of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack A. Raisner, Esq. Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 221-1747 Fax: (212) 221-1747 Email: rsr@raisnerroupinian.com jar@raisnerroupinian.com CONCIERGE AUCTIONS: Knoche Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Concierge Auctions, LLC. The case is styled as Norman Knoche, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Concierge Auctions, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00869 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 30, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Concierge Auctions -- https://www.conciergeauctions.com/ -- is the leading global luxury real estate auction marketplace.[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 COOPERATIVE RESPONSE CENTER: Anderson Sues Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Ann Anderson, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. Cooperative Response Center, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-03796-NEB-SGE (D. Minn., Sept. 29, 2025), is brought to recover an award of unpaid wages and overtime premiums, liquidated damages, penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any other remedies, for Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act ("MPWA"). The Defendant subjected Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, to Defendant's policy and practice of improper time punch rounding, which resulted in the failure to properly compensate CSRs as required under the FLSA and MPWA. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Plaintiff regularly worked at least 40 hours per workweek. Regardless of whether Defendant scheduled Plaintiff to work a workweek totaling under 40 hours, a workweek totaling 40 hours, or a workweek totaling in excess of 40 hours, Plaintiff regularly worked a substantial amount of time that was recorded in Defendant's timekeeping system but went unpaid due to Defendant's rounding policy and practice, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Customer Service Representative I from March 2020 to May 2025 The Defendant describes itself as "a nationwide, cooperatively owned and operated, 24/7 contact center, alarm monitoring center, and software provider" that provides "services to electric utilities, including round-the-clock dispatch and customer care, and monitoring of security and medical alarms."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Phone: 612-436-1800 Fax: 612-436-1801 Email: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com CORDS CLUB INC: Bahena Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY BAHENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CORDS CLUB, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12289 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 8, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://cordsclub.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Cords Club, Inc. owns a website known as Cordsclub.com, which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including the ability to view a variety of hypoallergenic jewelry, including flat back studs, themed earring bundles, enamel studs, and bracelets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (718) 554-0237 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Bullard Suit over False Advertising ----------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 10, 2025, that on June 20, 2024, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the company and Nice-Pak Products, Inc., alleging that Kirkland Signature Fragrance Free Baby Wipes contain 3.7 parts per billion of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances. The case is captioned "Bullard, et ano., v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et ano.," No. 3:24-cv-03714 (N.D. Cal.). The complaint alleges that the label claim that the wipes are "made with naturally derived ingredients" thus violates various state consumer protection and false advertising laws. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, including punitive damages, as well as equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 9, 2024. On February 14, 2025, the court granted the motion. An amended complaint was filed; defendants' motion to dismiss this complaint was denied on May 14, 2025. Costco operates membership warehouses and e-commerce sites, offering low prices on a limited selection of nationally-branded and private-label products in a wide range of categories. COVENANT PRACTICE: Cruz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Covenant Practice Management, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Joy Rae Cruz, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Covenant Practice Management, LLC, De La Pena Eye Clinic A Medical Group Inc. d/b/a DLP Eye Group, Case No. 25STCV29326 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Oct. 6, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Covenant Practice Management, LLC formerly Covenant Physician Partners is a privately-held owner and operator of ambulatory surgery centers.[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 CPA GLOBAL: Brainchild Seeks to File Class Exhibits Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRAINCHILD SURGICAL DEVICES, LLC, v. CPA GLOBAL LIMITED, Case No. 1:21-cv-00554-RDA-LRV (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file under seal certain documents submitted in support of its motion for class certification. Specifically, Brainchild requests leave to file under seal: • Exhibits A, C, D, E, and F to the Declaration of Ryan Abbott; • The Declaration of David Cass • Brainchild’s memorandum in support of its motion. The exhibits to the Abbott Declaration were prepared or produced in connection with discovery in this litigation, and have all been designated Confidential or Highly Confidential by the Defendant. Similarly, the Cass Declaration was prepared using, and includes reference to, materials produced by CPA that CPA has designated Confidential or Highly Confidential. Brainchild's memorandum in support of its motion, in turn, contains discussion of these materials that CPA designated confidential. CPA provides general, legal, and intellectual property (IP) support services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ce5jDm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rob Powers, Esq. MCCLANAHAN POWERS, LLP 3160 Fairview Park Dr., Ste. 410 Falls Church, VA 22042 Telephone: (703) 520-1326 E-mail: rpowers@mcplegal.com - and - Ryan B. Abbott, Esq. Ethan J. Brown, Esq. BROWN NERI SMITH & KHAN, LLP 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2080 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 593-9890 Facsimile: (310) 593-9980 E-mail: Geoff@bnsklaw.com Ethan@bnsklaw.com Ryan@bnskaw.com CPA GLOBAL: Brainchild Surgical Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRAINCHILD SURGICAL DEVICES, LLC, v. CPA GLOBAL LIMITED, Case No. 1:21-cv-00554-RDA-LRV (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following plaintiff class under Rule 23(b)(3): "All CPA Global clients who paid a Country Charge pursuant to a contract under U.S. law during the period of Jan. 1, 2017 to the present." Brainchild further requests that the Court appoint Brainchild as the class representative, and that the Court appoint Brown, Neri, Smith & Khan LLP, Alexander Morrison + Fehr LLP, and McClanahan Powers LLP as class counsel. For reasons explained in the supporting brief, certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) class is warranted. Brainchild contends that CPA overcharged roughly 10,000 customers (including Brainchild) in violation of the terms of the customers' contracts with CPA Global. Those contracts all have materially identical terms with respect to the relevant charges, and CPA Global had a uniform method for calculating and assessing those charges. CPA provides general, legal, and intellectual property (IP) support services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EMv56f at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rob Powers, Esq. MCCLANAHAN POWERS, LLP 3160 Fairview Park Dr., Ste. 410 Falls Church, VA 22042 Telephone: (703) 520-1326 E-mail: rpowers@mcplegal.com - and - Ryan B. Abbott, Esq. Ethan J. Brown, Esq. BROWN NERI SMITH & KHAN, LLP 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2080 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 593-9890 Facsimile: (310) 593-9980 E-mail: Geoff@bnsklaw.com Ethan@bnsklaw.com Ryan@bnskaw.com CRASH CHAMPIONS: Rocha Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Pedro Rocha, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. CRASH CHAMPIONS, LLC, and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown entities, Case No. 25-2-23675-7 KNT was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Sept. 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01880. The Complaint set forth five causes of action against Defendant: alleged Failure to Compensate for Legally Noncompliant Meal and Rest Periods in Violation of WAC 296-126-092; alleged Double Damages for Willful and Intentional Withholding of Wages Pursuant to RCW 49.52.050,070; alleged Minimum Wage Violations in Violation of Minimum Wage Act: RCW 49.46 et seq.; alleged Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; and alleged Record Keeping Violations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Crosner, Esq. Jamie K. Serb, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL PC 9440 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (310) 496-5818 Fax: (818) 700-9973 Email: zach@crosnerlegal.com jamie@crosnerlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Breanne Martell, Esq. Gray Jeong, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101.3122 Phone: 206.623.3300 Facsimile: 206.447.6965 Email: bsmartell@littler.com gjeong@littler.com DAILY HARVEST INC: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Daily Harvest, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-03791 (D. Minn., Sept. 29, 2025), is brought arising because the Defendant's Website (www.daily-harvest.com) 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 the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"). As a consequence of Plaintiffs experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on their behalf, Plaintiffs found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiffs full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiffs would like to, intend 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. 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 Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs are and have been legally blind and are therefore disabled. The Defendant offers pre-packed meals and drinks for sale including, but not limited to, smoothies, protein powders, breakfast bowls, ready-made meals and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Allman Sues Over Illegal Wage Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Allman, Tina Allman, Precious Amaechi, Torrance Clemmons, Jerry Cox, Jr., Donald Crear, Christopher Dyer, Tim Ervin, Billy Hamilton, LaTorrez Jones, Juanita Kelly, Adrain Moffett, Russell Moore, Jeffrey Payton, James Shields, Jewell Simpson, Terry Trout and all those employees similarly situated of Dallas County v. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, CLAY JENKINS in his official capacity as Dallas County Judge, DR. THERESA DANIEL, ANDY SOMMERMAN, JOHN WILEY PRICE, AND DR. ELBA GARCIA, in their official capacities as Dallas County Commissioners, Case No. 3:25-cv-02709-K (N.D. Tex., Oct. 3, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), seeking to finally end the punitive and illegal practices of the County, which have gone on for too long, and which persist despite multiple Department of Labor investigations finding violations. Despite the Dallas County Sheriff's efforts, and for longer than the past three years, the DCCC and its supporting administration have persistently, intentionally, and willfully subjected its Sheriff's Office employees along with the rest of its workforce, which consists of a total of approximately 6,500 current employees, to illegal employment and compensation practices that violate their rights and welfare. This complaint is filed as one more attempt by Plaintiffs, in its three-year pursuit to express their first amendment right to speak out on a matter of extreme public concern, recognizing that for doing so, retaliation is likely, as has occurred in the past, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are non-exempt employees of the County. Dallas County is a political subdivision of the State of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: George E. Hyde, Esq. Matthew L. Weston, Esq. HYDE KELLEY LLP 2806 Flintrock Trace, Suite A104 Austin, TX 78738 Phone: (512) 686-0700 Facsimile: (866) 929-1641 Email: ghyde@txlocalgovlaw.com mweston@txlocalgovlaw.com DAUPHIN COUNTY, PA: Court Narrows Claims in Little Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KANI LITTLE, et al., v. DAUPHIN COUNTY, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-02169-KM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Karoline Mehalchick entered a memorandum agreeing with the Report's sound reasoning and discerns no error of law. Accordingly, the Report is adopted in its entirety as the opinion of the Court. Moving Defendants' objection is overruled. Moving Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Moving Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted as to Counts III and IV of the complaint and Counts III and IV are dismissed without prejudice. Moving Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied regarding the remaining counts and Moving Defendants' request to deny class certification is denied. The Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an amended complaint within 21 days, or on or before Oct. 20, 2025. The Plaintiffs do not just assert boilerplate and conclusory allegations; they allege Pierre and Briggs directed specific allegedly unconstitutional acts and made the decision to cut power to the RHU together. Further, information about Briggs and Pierre's actions directing prison officials is necessarily within Defendants’ knowledge and control and not Plaintiffs' because Plaintiffs were housed in high-security isolation cells when these actions were taken. Thus, Judge Latella correctly determined that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged Briggs and Pierre had personal involvement in allegedly unconstitutional actions. The Court adopts the Report's recommendation that the Court deny Moving Defendants’ motion to dismiss Counts I and II. The Plaintiffs specifically allege that in November 2023, prison officials became concerned about RHU inmates smoking synthetic marijuana and began to seize tablets from all RHU inmates. According to the Plaintiffs, Dauphin County Prison inmates are not allowed to have physical documents because of drug smuggling concerns and because of this, RHU inmates can only access physical reading materials through tablets. This includes communications with individuals outside the facility, recreational materials, mental health materials, legal materials, and religious texts. The Plaintiffs filed the operative complaint on December 17, 2024. In the complaint, Plaintiffs seek class certification for "All persons confined at Dauphin County Prison in Units P-3, P-5, and/or P-6 of the Restrictive Housing Unit at any point from Nov. 16, 2023, to Dec. 19, 2023." The Plaintiffs further seek to represent three subclasses consisting of 1) class members whose constitutional claims arise under the Fourteenth Amendment, 2) all class members whose constitutional claims arise under the Eighth Amendment, and 3) all class members "who had a diagnosed mental health condition reflected in their official [Dauphin County Prison] records during the Class Period." Dauphin is a county in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k2ACXD at no extra charge.[CC] DCM SERVICES: Fiorito Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Websites ----------------------------------------------------------- Michael Fiorito and all others similarly situated v. DCM Services LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-24519-EAL (S.D. Fla., Oct. 1, 2025), is brought arising because the defendant's websites are not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or have low vision, in violation of both the general non, discriminatory mandate, Federal and State Law and the Effective Communication and Auxiliary Aids and Services requirements of Americans with Disabilities Act (The ADA) and its implementing regulations. The Defendant's all own, operate, and/or control their websites and are responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the websites development and maintenance and employee training. As a consequence of his experience visiting defendant's websites, including in 2024, and from investigation performed on his 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 Defendant makes available to its sighted website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendants website in the future to browse, research, or even seek employment and conduct research on Defendant and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendants policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its website fail to ensure its website is fully accessible to, and independently useable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities, Defendants all have failed to properly train their employees to handle website ADA Accessibility issues. The Defendants have been repeatedly warned about their websites accessibility issues but have chosen to take no action, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally, visually impaired and suffers from severe long term Traumatic Brain Injury and is therefore disabled under the ADA. DCM Services LLC is based in Florida.[BN] DEANCO HEALTHCARE: Wasp Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deanco Healthcare, LLC. The case is styled as Tramaine Marquise Wasp, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Deanco Healthcare, LLC d/b/a Mission Community Hospital, Case No. 25STCV29572 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Barbara Cty., Oct. 8, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Deanco Healthcare, LLC provides healthcare services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92318 Phone: (949) 387-7200 Fax: (949) 387-6676 DFG RESTAURANTS: Blanco Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DFG Restaurants, Inc. The case is styled as Alexis Blanco, individually, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DFG Restaurants, Inc., a California corporation; Friendly Franchisee Corporation, a California corporation; Does 1-25, inclusive, Case No. 25VECV05670 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 6, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." DFG Restaurants, Inc. doing business as Deluxe Food Service -- https://www.deluxefoodgroup.com/ -- is a leading importer and distributor of premium food products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina M. Lucio, Esq. Mitchell J. Murray, Esq. Nicholas W. Schieffelin, Esq. EMPLAW, LLP 2235 Encinitas Blvd., Ste. 210 Encinitas, CA 92024-4357 Phone: 760-942-9433 Email: christina@emplawllp.com mitchell@emplawllp.com nick@emplawllp.com DISNEY WORLDWIDE: Desouvre Sues Over Intrusive Business Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yanatha Desouvre, on behalf of his minor children, J.D. and A.D., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DISNEY WORLDWIDE SERVICES, INC., a corporation, and DISNEY ENTERTAINMENT OPERATIONS LLC, a limited liability company, Case No. 6:25-cv-01878 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 29, 2025), is brought on behalf of his minor children, J.D. and A.D., individually and on behalf of all other individuals who had their privacy invaded by Disney's intrusive and unlawful business practices of enabling the collection of personal information from millions of children under the age of 13 in the United States, without providing notice to parents or obtaining verifiable parental consent. Since 2019, Disney has failed to designate its animated videos, cartoons, movie clips, and other content clearly aimed at children under 13 as "made for kids" on YouTube. Disney's failure to designate its videos as "made for kids" has allowed the collection of personal data from children, including persistent identifiers (like cookies and device IDs) and sensitive information (such as identity and location), all without notifying parents or securing verifiable parental consent. Disney thereby generates substantial advertising revenue from opening up its audience of millions of children under the age of 13 to YouTube's targeted advertising algorithm. Disney's conduct illegally invades the privacy of millions of children in the United States, and it violates an array of federal and state statutes protecting children and consumers. Minor Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated children under the age of 13 injured Disney's misconduct, says the complaint. The Minor Plaintiffs watched child-directed content uploaded by Disney on the YouTube platform. Disney is a worldwide media conglomerate that produces and distributes highly popular child-directed content, including through its official channels on YouTube, a video- sharing platform owned by Google LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq., THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com DLS EVENTS: Meza Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages --------------------------------------------------- Claudia Meza, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DLS EVENTS, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV28270 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 29, 2025), is brought under the California Labor Codes against the Defendants for penalties for violations of the California Labor Code, including without limitation, failure to timely pay employees all wages. This complaint challenges systemic illegal employment practices resulting in violations of the California Labor Code against individuals who worked for Defendants. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, Defendants, jointly and severally, have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees by failing to timely pay all wages. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, Defendants have engaged in, among Other things a system of willful violations Of the California Labor Code and applicable IWC wage orders by creating and maintaining policies, practices, and customs that knowingly deny employees the above stated rights and benefits., says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a Staffing Manager, from April 11, 2024 until June 30, 2025. DLS EVENTS, LLC was and is a limited liability company under the laws of the State of California and doing business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Max W. Gavron, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com mgavron@diversitylaw.com - and - William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Phone: (831) 531-4214 Facsimile: (831) 634-0333 Email: bill@polarislawgroup.com DOLLAR TREE STORES: Cressey Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Amy Cressey, an individual, and others similarly situated v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., a Virginia corporation; MARGARITA SANTOS, an individual; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 25CU045301C 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-02624-WQH-KSC. The Complaint alleges 11 employment-related claims brought under state law: discrimination on the basis of age under Fair Employment and Housing Act; failure to prevent discrimination under FEHA; retaliation under FEHA; retaliation for use of sick leave; whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code Section 1102.5; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; unpaid minimum wage; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest breaks; failure to issue accurate and itemized wage statements; and waiting time penalties.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Rachael Lavi, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: rlavi@littler.com DRURY HOTELS: $290K Settlement in Knighten Suit Wins Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAYLA KNIGHTEN, v. DRURY HOTELS COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00666-SEP (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Sarah Pitlyk entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for settlement approval. The Court FURTHER entered an order that: -- The Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to file in excess of page limitation is granted. -- The Plaintiff's joint motion to amend proposed settlement notice, claim form, and order is granted. In summary, under the proposed settlement, a common fund of $290,000.00 will be established. After deducting attorneys' fees, litigation costs, settlement administration costs, and the collective representative award, $162,775.46 will be made available to "all current and former Customer Service Representatives who worked for Drury's National Contact Center in the United States at any time during the three years preceding June 28, 2024, and who were amongst the 292 employees identified in the data productions produced by Drury to Named Plaintiff on August 29, 2024" ("Settlement Collective Members"). The Court finds the request for attorneys' fees to be fair and reasonable. The Plaintiff's counsel took this case on a contingency basis and was able "to successfully obtain a concrete and substantial benefit—a settlement fund totaling $290,000— for a Settlement Collective of 292 similarly situated employees with relatively low dollar claims." The Court also approves the Plaintiff's counsel's request for reimbursement up to $15,000.00 in litigation costs. Per counsel, at the time the Motion for Settlement Approval was filed, the costs incurred in litigating the case and obtaining the settlement totaled $14,389.89, and any unused costs will be made available for Settlement Collective Members. The Court approves the appointment of ILYM, Inc., as the Settlement Administrator and approves its fees and costs of up to $11,167.98 to administer the settlement. As the appointed Settlement Administrator, ILYM will be responsible for executing the functions outlined in Section 2.2 of the Agreement. On May 13, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and common laws claim of breach of contract, or in the alternative, unjust enrichment. The Complaint alleged that Defendant failed to pay its remote customer service representatives (CSRs) for the time spent logging into and out of the programs and applications required to perform their job duties. Drury operates as a hotel. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hmCYED at no extra charge.[CC] DUMPLING KING GROUP: Campbell Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- Andree Campbell, and all others similarly situated v. Dumpling King Group LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 0:25-cv-62019-RS (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 4 U.S.-based restaurants specializing in handcrafted Chinese dumplings, soups, rice dishes, and Asian comfort fare.[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 EAST CENTRAL: Appeals Remand Order in Moser Suit to 8th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- EAST CENTRAL MISSOURI BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Mildred Moser, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. East Central Missouri Behavioral Health Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00020-HEA, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, which was removed from the Circuit Court for Audrain County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, is brought against the Defendant for claims of: (1) negligence and negligence per se, (2) breach of implied contract, (3) unjust enrichment, (4) breach of bailment, and (5) invasion of privacy. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant failed to properly secure its patients' protected health information and personally identifying information, which resulted in a data breach of the Defendant's electronic health record system and the theft of its patients' information by unknown bad actors. On Mar. 19, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case, which Judge Henry Edward Autrey granted on Sept. 9, 2025. The court ruled that the Defendant lacked valid grounds for federal court removal in this class action data breach lawsuit. Judge Autrey determined that neither the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act nor the federal officer removal statute provided proper basis for federal jurisdiction. The appellate case is entitled Mildred Moser v. East Central Missouri Behavioral Health Services, Inc., Case No. 25-2990, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on October 7, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appendix is due on November 17, 2025; -- Appellant's Brief is due on November 17, 2025; and -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee MILDRED MOSER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Colleen Garvey, Esq. John F. Garvey, Jr., Esq. Ellen Thomas, Esq. STRANCH & JENNINGS 701 Market Street, Suite 1510 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 374-6306 - and - James Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH & JENNINGS Suite 200, Freedom Building 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Defendant-Appellant EAST CENTRAL MISSOURI BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC. is represented by: James Daniel Ribaudo, Esq. GAUSNELL & O'KEEFE 1717 Park Avenue Saint Louis, MO 63104 Telephone: (314) 257-9800 ENTEGRIS INC: Hurtado Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case EDUARDO HURTADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ENTEGRIS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 25CV139553, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on October 8, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-08603 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of California Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law. Entegris, Inc. is a supplier of materials for the semiconductor and other high-tech industries, headquartered in Massachusetts. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Brian Berry, Esq. Sarah Zenewicz, Esq. Monica N. Ratajczak, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 Email: brian.berry@morganlewis.com sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com monica.ratajczak@morganlewis.com EQUITY ONE: Marino Sues Over Inaccessible Property -------------------------------------------------- Jose Marino, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. EQUITY ONE (FLORIDA PORTFOLIO) LLC and THE SHERWIN – WILLIAMS COMPANY, Case No. 1:25-cv-24573-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 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. EQUITY ONE (FLORIDA PORTFOLIO) LLC, owns, operates, and oversees the commercial property, with all areas open to the public.[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 EVANSVILLE VANDERBURGH: Faces Suit Over Discrimination, Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------------- L.O. and B.O on behalf of R.O., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EVANSVILLE VANDERBURGH SCHOOL CORPORATION, BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES OF THE EVANSVILLE VANDERBURGH SCHOOL CORPORATION, DR. DAVID SMITH, JENNIFER HARPENAU, ELLYN HULSEY, CAROLINE PALESKI, ELIJAH FARMER, CALEB BREEDEN, JEREMIAH RAINEY, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00220-MPB-CSW (S.D. Ind., October 8, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Americans with Disabilities Act, and 42 U.S. Code Section 1983, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The case arises from the Defendants' pattern of unlawful retaliation, discrimination, and abusive disciplinary practices. The Defendants were negligent in breaching their duty to safeguard Plaintiff R.O. and to provide him with a safe educational environment, foreseeably causing him severe emotional trauma, psychiatric hospitalization, and the denial of educational access. Moreover, the Defendants retaliated against R.O. and his family by subjecting him to repeated and prolonged seclusion, exclusion from education, and acts of intimidation after his parents successfully challenged Evansville's breach of duty. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and such further remedies as are necessary to redress the Defendants' unlawful retaliation, abuse of seclusion, and deliberate indifference to R.O.'s rights. Evansville Vanderburgh School Corporation, is a public school district in Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tammy J. Meyer, Esq. METZGER ROSTA LLP 32 S. 9th Street Noblesville, IN 46060 Telephone: (317) 219-4606 Email: tammy@metzgerrosta.com - and - Catherine M. Michael, Esq. CONNELL MICHAEL, LLP 550 Congressional Ave., Suite 115 Carmel, IN 46032 Telephone: (317) 343-4482 Email: Catherine@connellmichaellaw.com - and - Dorene Philpot, Esq. PHILPOT LAW OFFICE, PLLC 275 Bristol Lane Livingston, TX 77351 Telephone: (281) 989-2010 Email: Fape4kids@gmail.com - and - Benjamin J. Hinerfeld, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN J. HINERFELD 9 Stoddard Street Plymouth, MA 02360 Telephone: (215) 694-7432 Email: Ben@hinerfeldlaw.com EVENFLO COMPANY: Faces Class Suit Over Design Hazards of Car Seats ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that certain Evenflo car seats suffer from a headrest-related design defect that can create a choking hazard for infants and young children. The 31-page lawsuit against Evenflo claims that the cover of the foam headrest found on the company's Gold Revolve360 Slim and Revolve360 Slim car seat models can be easily removed by children, exposing foam underneath that can be pulled off in pieces. Should these chunks be ingested, they could pose a potentially fatal choking hazard, the suit says. The case states that roughly 324,000 car seats were voluntarily recalled by Evenflo in September 2025 in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Commission. The recall came after "11 case reports of children with foam pieces from the headrest in their mouths and 12 case reports of children with foam pieces from the headrest, though not ingesting it," with no injuries reported, the complaint details. However, the class action lawsuit charges that the Evenflo recall was "wholly inadequate for consumers" given that the remedy -- a free kit with an additional tape seal supposedly designed to prevent a child's access to the headrest foam -- provides no real relief and instead leaves consumers with a car seat that remains dangerous to use. Per the suit, the model numbers associated with the recalled Gold Revolve360 Slim and Revolve360 Slim car seats are 36812449, 36812449AZ, 36812450, 36812450POP, 36812450AZ, 36812451, 36812451AZ, 36812467, 36812467AZ, 36812468, 36812468AZ, 36812469, 36812469AZ, 36812470, 36812470A, 36812470TGT, 36812471, 36812501, 36812501A, and 36812504. The recall applies to units manufactured between December 1, 2022, and December 8, 2024, the filing says. According to the complaint, Evenflo "was aware, or should have been aware, that the Car Seats' headrest cover could become unsecured" because of robust industry-standard product testing. The plaintiffs contend that the danger posed by the car seats negates several advertising claims made by Evenflo, including statements such as "safety has never meant more," and that its products "typically include more advanced safety and comfort features than convertible car seats." On top of the recall, Evenflo has urged consumers with the afflicted car seat models to cease using them and contact the company for a free repair kit. This kit includes tape intended to act as an additional seal for the headrests, covering the foam access points. Head to this page to confirm your model information and receive a free headrest repair kit from Evenflo, with shipping included. The repair kit requires no additional tools and includes instructions for assembly. The company claims that shipping will begin in early November. This is not the first time Evenflo has been under fire for allegedly defective, unsafe products. In January 2020, a portable crib "napper" was recalled due to a suffocation risk after it was reported that infants could easily roll from their back to stomach or side. "Every Product suffers from the uniform Defect, which, unknown to consumers but known to Defendant, exists at the point of purchase and poses an unreasonable safety hazard to children," the case alleges. "As such, Plaintiff and all reasonable consumers are victims of the unfair bargaining power between them and Defendant based on Evenflo's superior industry knowledge." Proposed class members for the Evenflo car seat lawsuit include all consumers in the United States who bought one or more of the products at issue in the U.S. during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] EVERGREEN ALLIANCE GOLF: Conant Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Evergreen Alliance Golf Limited, L.P., et al. The case is styled as Laura Conant, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Evergreen Alliance Golf Limited, L.P., Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 25CV146183 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 29, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Evergreen Alliance Golf Limited, LP provides golf course management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Quadrel, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 310-622-4278 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: rquadrel@blackstonepc.com EVERGUARD HOME INSULATION: Flores Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Everguard Home Insulation, Inc. The case is styled as Jimmy Carrillo Flores, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Everguard Home Insulation, Inc., Case No. 25STCV28277 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Everguard Home Insulation -- https://www.everguardinsulation.com/ -- provides Insulation Installation or Upgrade, Sound Proofing, Weatherization 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 EVERGY INC: Doll Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERICK L. DOLL, CATHERINE M. FLUEGEL, and JOSEPH NAGLE, individually and as representatives of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries on behalf of the Evergy, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan, v. EVERGY, INC., DAVID A. CAMPBELL, TERRY BASSHAM, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE EVERGY, INC. 401(k) SAVINGS PLAN, and SAGEVIEW ADVISORY GROUP, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00043-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to file the following materials under seal in connection with their Motion for Class Certification: -- Exhibits A, B and C to the Declaration of James A. Bloom in support of the Plaintiffs' reply suggestions in support of their motion for class certification. The materials that Plaintiffs seek to file under seal have been designated Confidential by the Defendants, and Defendants have not consented to the filing of these materials on the public record. The Plaintiffs agree that these materials, which include details of the Plaintiffs' personal financial information which, at this stage of the case, should not be publicly available on the Court's docket, are property designated as "Confidential." On May 27, 2025, this Court entered the parties’ stipulated Protective Order in this action. Evergy is engaged in the generation, transmission, distribution, and sale of electricity in the United States. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nl14Zf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul M. Secunda, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (414) 828-2372 E-mail: psecunda@walcheskeluzi.com - and - James A. Bloom, Esq. Todd M. Schneider, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 E-mail: jbloom@schneiderwallace.com - and - Michael F. Brady, Esq. BRADY & ASSOCIATES 2118 W 120th St Leawood, KS 66209 Telephone: (913) 696-0925 E-mail: brady@mbradylaw.com - and - Don Bivens, Esq. DON BIVENS PLLC 15169 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 205 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (602) 762-2661 E-mail: don@donbivens.com teresita@donbivens.com EXACT CARE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Everett Suit Due Dec. 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA EVERETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EXACT CARE PHARMACY, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-01649-KMN (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Keli M. Neary entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to modify case management order: The Plaintiff shall file her motion for class certification on or before Dec. 8, 2025. The Defendant is a national medication management and pharmacy care provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ctY17U at no extra charge.[CC] EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 9, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRYL DAVIS, et al., v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-04819-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order setting the following deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule 16-10: Event Deadline Amendment of pleadings/joinder Nov. 17, 2025 Close of fact discovery Feb. 13, 2026 Deadline for the Plaintiff to file April 9, 2026 motion for class certification and serve related expert reports Deadline for Defendant to file May 15, 2026 opposition to motion for class certification and serve related expert reports: Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file June 5, 2026 reply in support of motion for class certification: Close of expert discovery: June 5, 2026 Hearing on motion for class June 25, 2026, certification: at 2:00 p.m. Experian operates as an information services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8whSCk at no extra charge.[CC] EYEMED VISION: $5-Mil. Suit Settlement Final OK Hearing Set Jan. 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top class Actions reports that EyeMed Vision Care LLC agreed to a $5 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to prevent a 2020 data breach that compromised sensitive consumer information. The EyeMed settlement benefits consumers who received a notice from EyeMed informing them that their personal data was compromised in a data breach in June 2020. During the EyeMed data breach, an unauthorized third party allegedly gained access to sensitive consumer information, such as names, contact details, dates of birth, health insurance account and identification numbers, Medicaid or Medicare numbers, driver's licenses and other government identification numbers. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim EyeMed could have prevented the data breach through reasonable cybersecurity measures. EyeMed Vision Care is a vision benefits company that provides services to more than 100 million members around the world. EyeMed has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $5 million to resolve the class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the EyeMed settlement, class members can receive a cash payment for out-of-pocket expenses and lost time. Class members can receive up to $10,000 for documented out-of-pocket expenses related to the data breach. This includes unreimbursed losses relating to fraud or identity theft, professional fees, credit expenses, verified fraud, miscellaneous expenses and more. In addition to compensation for documented losses, class members can also receive compensation for up to four hours of lost time at a rate of $25 per hour, for a total of up to $100 in lost-time compensation. Class members can receive a residual cash payment from the settlement. These payments are estimated to be around $50 but may be adjusted higher or lower depending on the number of claims filed and the amount used to pay documented loss claims. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Nov. 11, 2025. The final approval hearing for the EyeMed data breach settlement is scheduled for Jan. 7, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Dec. 11, 2025. Who's Eligible Individuals who received a data breach notice from EyeMed informing them that their personal data may have been compromised in a June 2020 data breach. Potential Award Up to $10,150 Proof of Purchase Documentation of unreimbursed losses, such as bank statements, credit reports, invoices, receipts, etc. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 12/11/2025 Case Name Tate, et al. v. EyeMed Vision Care LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00036-DRC-SKB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Final Hearing 01/07/2026 Settlement Website EyeMedDataSettlement.com Claims Administrator Tate v EyeMed Vision Care LLC c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 (833) 621-8389 Class Counsel Bryan L. Bleichner Christopher P. Renz CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE P.A. Brittany L. Brown Lori G. Feldman David J. George GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD PLLC Defense Counsel Carrie Dettmer Slye Paul G. Karlsgodt Colby M. Everett BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP [GN] FACTS ON DEMAND: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATE MOORE, v. FACTS ON DEMAND, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-02191-MHC-CCB (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Bly entered an order grating parties' motion to extend deadlines in the case pending private mediation, which is scheduled for Dec. 12, 2025. The parties are directed to file a status report within 5 business days of the mediation, informing the Court whether a settlement has been reached. If the mediation is unsuccessful, the Plaintiff's class certification motion will be due on Feb. 2, 2026, and any motion for summary judgment will be due no later than 30 days following the Court's final ruling on the class certification motion. The Defendant offers national background checks and employment screening services to all industries. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2mFXyZ at no extra charge.[CC] FARMERS INSURANCE: Tongpalad Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Farmers Insurance Company, Inc. The case is styled as Sarawudh Tongpalad, individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UBT-2025-0014265 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Oct. 1, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Business Tort/ Unfair Business Practice." Farmers Insurance Group -- https://www.farmers.com/ -- is an American insurer group of vehicles, homes and small businesses and also provides other insurance and financial services products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Treglio, 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 FASTAFF LLC: Court Partly OK's Egan Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THERESA EGAN, BRIAN BARKER, TAYLOR BERDOLL, SABRINA BUDDEN-WRIGHT, ALISON RIDEOUT, BRITTANY SCALIA, and JENNIFER MASLOWSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FASTAFF, LLC and U.S. NURSING CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-03364-CYC (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Chung entered an order granting in part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification of State Law Overtime Claims. The Court certifies the following classes: The California Class: "Any person who entered into an agreement with Fastaff to work at a facility in California who (1) worked more than 40 hours in a workweek or 8 hours in a work day, (2) who was paid a stipend during that workweek or work day, and (3) whose regular rate of pay did not include the value of that stipend from three years (Cal. Lab. Code section 510 overtime claim) or four years (derivative Unfair Competition Law claim) prior to the filing of the Complaint through the date of the Court's class certification order." The New York Class: "Any person who entered into an agreement with Fastaff to work at a facility in New York who (1) worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, (2) who was paid a stipend during that workweek, and (3) whose regular rate of pay did not include the value of that stipend from six years prior to the filing of the Complaint through the date of the Court's class certification order." The New Jersey Class: "Any person who entered into an agreement with Fastaff to work at a facility in New Jersey who (1) worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, (2) who was paid a stipend during that workweek, and (3) whose regular rate of pay did not include the value of that stipend from six years prior to the filing of the Complaint through the date of the Court's class certification order." "Fastaff" in these classes is defined to mean Fastaff, LLC. "Stipends" are the housing and meals and incidentals stipends Fastaff offered. Additionally, the Court appoints the Plaintiffs' counsel Alexander T. Ricke and Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP as class counsel. The plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23(b)(3) certification of bait-and-switch classes is denied. The Plaintiffs move to certify several classes to litigate unpaid overtime claims and to certify several more to address fraud claims. ECF Nos. 130–133. Because three of the four unpaid-overtime classes they seek to certify meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court grants that motion in part. But because the plaintiffs have not shown that their fraud claims are susceptible to class-wide adjudication on the issue of reliance, the Court denies that motion. Fastaff is a staffing agency specializing in the placement of traveling nurses. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ctSjGS at no extra charge.[CC] FASTAFF LLC: Scheduling Conference in Egan Set for Nov. 6 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Egan, et al., v. Fastaff, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-03364 (D. Colo., Filed Dec. 30, 2022), the Hon. Judge entered an order setting a Scheduling Conference on Nov. 6, 2025. Pursuant to the Second Scheduling Order, the parties are required to file a proposed "scheduling order for additional merits discovery, expert disclosures, and dispositive motions, if necessary, no later than thirty days after a ruling on class certification," which is October 30, 2025 . Pursuant to the Court's January 23, 2025, Minute Order, the proposed order shall include "the deadline for motions for summary judgment". The nature of suit states Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Fastaff is a staffing agency specializing in the placement of traveling nurses.[CC] FEDERAL SAVINGS: Sapan Loses Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Paul Sapan v. The Federal Savings Bank, Case No. 8:23-cv-00075 (C.D. Cal. Filed Jan. 13, 2023), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Valenzuela entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Defendant is a veteran owned bank.[CC] FERRARI EXPRESS: Rivera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ferrari Express, Inc. The case is styled as Timothy Rivera, on behalf of others similarly situated v. Ferrari Express, Inc., Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC25629910 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 7, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Ferrari Express, Inc. -- https://www.ferrarigroup.net/ -- provides transportation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq. FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC. 3333 Camino Del Rio South Sui San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: 619-693-7727 Email: nick@ferrarovega.com FIRST FINANCIAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 29, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yvette Price, v. First Financial Security, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-10985-MCS-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark Scarsi entered an Scheduling Order: Event Date Non-expert discovery cut-off: April 20, 2026 Expert discovery cut-off: May 20, 2026 Deadline to file a motion for Jan. 29, 2026 class certification: Deadline to file an opposition to Feb. 19, 2026 the motion for class certification: Deadline to file a reply in support of March 12, 2026 the motion for class certification: Hearing date on motion for class March 30, 2026, certification: at 9:00 a.m. First is a national insurance agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0iYkme at no extra charge.[CC] FIVE STAR BANK: Castro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Five Star Bank, et al. The case is styled as Irene Castro, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Five Star Bank, Five Star Bancorp, Does 1-10, Case No. 25CV023182 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Sept. 30, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Five Star Bank -- https://www.five-starbank.com/ -- provides consumer and commercial banking and lending services to individuals, municipalities and businesses through banking locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Lee, Esq. GULDJIAN FASEL, APC 20250 SW Birch St. Newport Beach, CA 92660-1722 Phone: 949-274-7930 Fax: 949-480-1699 Email: jlee@glawg.com FLORIDA NATURAL: Kolkin Sues Over Orange Juice's Deceptive Labels ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARTIN KOLKIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLORIDA NATURAL GROWERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02908-JDP (E.D. Cal., October 8, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law, and California's Unfair Competition Act, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Florida's Natural Orange Juice products. According to the complaint, the Defendant represents the products in the front label as Florida's Natural is "Owned by Florida Farmers" next to an image of a United States Flag. The Florida representations collectively represent that the products are made exclusively of premium Florida orange juice. However, unbeknownst to consumers, the products are actually blended with orange juice from Mexico and Brazil and are not in fact made exclusively from Florida oranges. Had the Plaintiff and the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased the products or would have paid less for them, says the suit. Florida Natural Growers, Inc. is a producer of fruit juice products, headquartered in Lake Wales, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 28 Geary St., Suite 640 # 1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7077 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 Email: yeremey@skclassactions.com brittany@skclassactions.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street 5th Floor #1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-4704 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 Email: joel@skclassactions.com FLORIDA: Donaldson Class Action Closed -------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DECARLO KERRY DONALDSON, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-22521-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Martinez entered an order dismissing without prejudice class action. -- All pending motion in this case are denied as moot, and this case is closed. Florida is a state agency of Florida concerned with taxes. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Pg2dBA at no extra charge.[CC] FLOWERS BAKERIES: Austin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flowers Bakeries Sales of SoCal, LLC. The case is styled as Tristan Austin, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Flowers Bakeries Sales of SoCal, LLC, Case No. 25STCV28273 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Flowers Bakeries Sales of SoCal, LLC doing business as Flowers Foods -- https://flowersfoods.com/ -- is the second-largest producer and marketer of packaged bakery foods in the US.[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 FOREST & EINSTEIN STAFFING: Holder Files Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forest & Einstein Staffing, Inc. The case is styled as Craig Holder, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Forest & Einstein Staffing, Inc. d/b/a The Job Shop, Case No. 2:25-cv-09488 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 6, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Forest & Einstein Staffing, Inc. doing business as The Job Shop is a privately owned staffing and employment agency based in Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 92102 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com FREEDOMROADS LLC: Aguilar Suit Removed to E.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tony Aguilar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FREEDOMROADS, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, Case No. 25-2-50980-11 was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for Franklin County, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Washington on Oct. 6, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-05132. The Complaint purports to seek relief from Defendant related to Washington law, specifically under Washington Administrative Code ("WAC"), Washington Labor Regulations, and the Revised Code of Washington ("RCW"). The Complaint alleges: failure to provide rest breaks; failure to provide meal breaks; failure to pay all overtime wages; failure to pay all wages due; failure to accrue and allow use of paid sick leave; unlawful deductions and rebates; failure to pay all wages due at termination; and willful refusal to pay wages. The Complaint seeks damages for alleged RCW and WAC violations and attorney fees.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Clarence M. Belnavis, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 682-2308 Email: cbelnavis@fisherphillips.com GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Class Action Over 'Shift to Park' Defect ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Powers, writing for SpeedMe, reports that General Motors has settled a class action brought by vehicle owners in Ohio and Tennessee over the "Shift to Park" issue. Because of a faulty gear selector, cars did not always remain secured in Park, leaving drivers unable to shut off the engine or lock the doors. A court approved the agreement under which GM will compensate owners and lessees of the affected models: the 2017–2019 GMC Acadia, 2019 Chevrolet Blazer, 2016–2019 Chevrolet Malibu, 2018–2019 Chevrolet Traverse, and 2016–2019 Chevrolet Volt. Ohio and Tennessee residents who sought warranty service can receive up to $500, plus reimbursement of repair expenses up to $375. Payments will be divided among co-owners when a vehicle has more than one. The two lead plaintiffs, Rilla Jefferson and Mark Riley, will receive $10,000 each for representing the class. Attorneys for the plaintiffs will be awarded more than $2 million. GM did not admit fault but chose to avoid further litigation. The company says most cases were already addressed through warranty repairs and indicates it remains ready to work with owners. The episode is a reminder that even industry heavyweights can stumble over a small but widespread defect. In the long run, preserving customer trust often costs more than any multimillion-dollar payout -- and that balance tends to shape how quickly automakers move to close the loop on problems like this. [GN] GIFTROCKET INC: Gracie Suit Seeks to Certify Classes ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GRACIE BAKED LLC, WECARE RG, INC., and MILLERCOBB LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GIFTROCKET, INC., TREMENDOUS, INC., NICHOLAS BAUM, KAPIL KALE, JONATHAN PINES, BENJAMIN KUBIC, SUNRISE BANKS, N.A., GIFTROCKET, LLC, TREMENDOUS LLC, and TREMENDOUS PARENT, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-04019-RPK-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1) Certifying the following classes: a. The "Injunctive Class" under Rule 23(b)(2): "All businesses or entities in the United States that were listed on GiftRocket.com from July 8, 2016 through Jan. 1, 2025." b. The "Disgorgement and Punitive Damages Class" under Rule 23(b)(3): "All businesses or entities in the United States that were identified in the suggested use feature for GiftRocket.com products sold from July 8, 2016 through Jan. 1, 2025"; and c. The "New York Class" under Rule 23(b)(3): "All businesses or entities in New York that were listed on GiftRocket.com from July 8, 2016 through Jan. 1, 2025"; 2) Appointing the Plaintiffs Gracie Baked LLC and WeCare RG, Inc. as Class Representatives for the Injunctive Class; 3) Appointing Plaintiff Millercobb LLC as Class Representative for the Disgorgement and Punitive Damages Class; 4) Appointing Plaintiff Gracie Baked LLC as Class Representative for the New York Class; and 5) Appointing Janove PLLC and Podhurst Orseck, P.A. as Class Counsel. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wdka1H at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. Liana Vitale, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 500 7th Avenue, 8th Fl. New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 E-mail: raphael@janove.law liana@janove.law - and - Matthew Weinshall, Esq. Dayron Silverio, Esq. PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Ste. 500 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 358-2800 E-mail: mweinshall@podhurst.com ds@podhurtst.com GKN DRIVELINE: Mebane Appeals Class. Cert & Attorney Fees Orders ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MEBANE, et al. are taking an appeal from court orders in the lawsuit entitled James Mebane, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GKN Driveline North American, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00892-CCE-LPA, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On May 12, 2023, Judge Loretta C. Biggs granted the Defendant's motion to decertify class. On Dec. 17, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees and costs. On Mar. 24, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to strike the Plaintiffs' untimely attorney declarations. On Sept. 30, 2025, Judge Catherine C. Eagles denied the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees and costs and granted in part the Defendant's motion to strike. The Plaintiffs may file a renewed motion for attorney fees and costs within ten business days if and only if (1) the parties agree on a reasonable fee, or (2) the Plaintiffs seek an amount less than the amount the Defendant has agreed was reasonable, and the Plaintiffs support that request with appropriate evidence. The appellate case is entitled James Mebane v. GKN Driveline North American, Inc., Case No. 25-2191, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on October 7, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JAMES MEBANE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Gilda Adriana Hernandez, Esq. Briahna Branker Koegel, Esq. Matthew S. Marlowe, Esq. Hannah B. Simmons, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 215 South Academy Street Cary, NC 27511 Telephone: (919) 741-8693 Defendant-Appellee GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICAN, INC. is represented by: Paul DeCamp, Esq. EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, PC 1227 25th Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 861-1819 - and - Vanessa Nicole Garrido, Esq. Kevin Scott Joyner, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART P.C. 8529 Six Forks Road Raleigh, NC 27615 Telephone: (919) 787-9700 (919) 789-3175 - and - Adriana Stefanie Kosovych, Esq. Victoria Sloan Lin, Esq. EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, P.C. 875 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 351-4527 (212) 351-4844 GRAINCORP LTD: Settles Class Action Over Noise Emission in Numurkah ------------------------------------------------------------------- Charmaine Manuel, writing for ABC Shepparton, reports that GrainCorp has settled a class action launched by a man who lives 100 metres from the company's Numurkah factory. Kevin Carling Green, 63, says noise and odour from the site affected his health. What's next? The matter was set to go to trial but the parties have now settled the matter in principle. Australian agribusiness giant GrainCorp has settled a long-running pollution legal case in northern Victoria on the day the case was set to go to trial. Kevin Carling Green, 63, has been in a four-year fight with GrainCorp Oilseeds over noise and odour emissions at its Numurkah canola oil processing factory. Mr Green, his wife and daughter have lived in their home, 100 metres from the factory, for 27 years. In launching his class action he alleged his family could not sleep, had broken out in skin rashes, and that their property had been devalued because of noise and odour emissions from the plant. The case started as a civil matter between Mr Green and the company but later turned into a class action involving other residents who lived within 1 kilometre of the factory. In documents filed to the court at previous hearings it was alleged that the beeping sounds, hissing steam, and trucks entering and exiting the factory were "especially noticeable during early mornings, evenings and nights", affecting residents' sleep. GrainCorp denied the allegations. The case was set to go to trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria, but was swiftly concluded when Justice Jacinta Forbes heard the parties had arrived at a settlement. The terms of the in-principle agreement will be subject to the court's approval later this year. Mr Green's lawyers were contacted for comment. In a statement, a GrainCorp spokesperson said it had reached an "in-principle settlement to resolve the class action". "The proposed terms of the settlement are confidential, and the settlement is subject to court approval," the spokesperson said. "We are proud of the work of our employees at Numurkah and fully support our people and the important role they play in supplying high-quality canola products to customers in Australia and overseas." GrainCorp operates the largest grain storage and handling network in eastern Australia with more than 150 regional receival sites. Oilseeds are crushed at its Numurkah plant to create a range of oils and canola meal used for animal feed. [GN] HELP AT HOME: Clayborn Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage ------------------------------------------------------------ Jada Clayborn, as an individual and on the behalf of similarly situated persons v. HELP AT HOME, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-12356 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 9, 2025), is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA") for Defendant's failure to pay minimum wage for all hours worked to Plaintiff and Defendant's retaliation toward Plaintiff for participating in protected activity. The Plaintiff worked five full days but was only paid for four, leaving her paycheck short by approximately four hours. During the course of Plaintiff's employment by Defendant, Plaintiff was not exempt from the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA. Plaintiff was directed by Defendant to work, and did work, and were not paid for all hours worked. Pursuant to the FLSA, for all weeks during which Plaintiff worked, she was entitled to be compensated at a rate of 100% of their regular rate of pay. The Defendant did not compensate Plaintiff at a rate of 100% of their regular rate of pay for all hours worked. The Defendants' failure and refusal to pay minimum wage for all hours worked was a willful violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a caregiver beginning February 20225 until Plaintiff's termination in June 2025. Help at Home, LLC, was a limited liability company doing business in and for Cook County in the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad W. Eisenback, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone (331) 307-7632 Fax (630) 575-8188 Email: ceisenback@sulaimanlaw.com HOTELS.COM LP: Echevarria Appeals Judgment Order to 11th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARIO ECHEVARRIA is taking an appeal from court judgments in the lawsuit entitled Mario Echevarria, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hotels.com L.P., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-22621-FAM, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996. On Sept. 9, 2025, Judge Federico A. Moreno entered judgments in favor of the Defendants. The Court ruled that the Defendants did cease bookings with the hotels located on the Plaintiff's inherited property within the 30 days provided by the Act and thus complied with the purpose of the law passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton. Therefore, the Court set aside the jury verdicts and entered judgments in favor of the Defendants. The appellate case is entitled Mario Echevarria v. Hotels.com L.P., et al., Case No. 25-13506, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on October 7, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MARIO ECHEVARRIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Allison Henry, Esq. HEISE SUAREZ MELVILLE, PA 2990 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Ste. 300 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 800-4476 - and - Robert J. Kuntz, Jr., Esq. Ana C. Malave, Esq. Jorge Alejandro Mestre, Esq. Andres Rivero, Esq. Alan H. Rolnick, Esq. Sylmarie Trujillo, Esq. RIVERO MESTRE, LLP 2525 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Ste. 1000 Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 445-2500 - and - Manuel Vazquez, Esq. MANUEL VAZQUEZ, PA 2332 Galiano St., Fl. 2 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 445-2344 Defendants-Appellees HOTELS.COM LP, et al. are represented by: Santosh Aravind, Esq. Stephen Burbank, Esq. Rebecca Jahnke, Esq. Stephanie Kover, Esq. Cheryl J. LaFond, Esq. David Shank, Esq. Jane Marie Webre, Esq. SCOTT DOUGLASS & MCCONNICO, LLP 303 Colorado St., Ste. 2400 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 495-6361 (512) 495-6352 (512) 495-6356 (512) 495-6344 - and - Genesis Martinez, Esq. Lorayne Perez, Esq. AKERMAN, LLP 98 SE 7th St., Ste. 1100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 982-5600 - and - Naim S. Surgeon, Esq. NEXTERA ENERGY RESOURCES 700 Universe Blvd., CTR-JB Juno Beach, FL 33408 Telephone: (561) 281-2959 J.A. ALEXANDER: Parties Seek Initial OK of Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTIAN ROMERO MONTERO, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by J A ALEXANDER, INC WEST ESSEX CONSTRUCTION, INC., MARIA REBIMBAS, individually, and JOSEPH DOMINICK REBIMBAS, individually, v. J A ALEXANDER, INC., WEST ESSEX CONSTRUCTION, INC., MARIA REBIMBAS, individually, and JOSEPH, Case No. 2:23-cv-21679-JRA (D.N.J.), the Parties, on Nov. 30, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., will move the Court for preliminary approval of the parties' joint motion for class and collective action settlement. The Defendant is a commercial contractor based in Bloomfield, NJ. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tlD7bI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Glenn, Esq. Jodi Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150 Princeton, NJ Jersey 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com The Defendants are represented by: Molly Hurley Kellett, Esq. CONNELL FOLEY, LLP 56 Livingston Avenue Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973)535-0500 E-mail: mkellett@connellfoley.com JENNMAR CORP: Bid for Decertification of FLSA Class Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLIE STACY and CLIFFORD ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JENNMAR CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA, INC., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00015-JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge James Jones entered an order as follows: 1. The motion for decertification of the FLSA Collective Class and Rule 23 Class is denied; 2. The motion to exclude the testimony of Richard Goldberg is denied; 3. The motion for sanctions is granted in part and denied in part; 4. Motion for summary judgment is denied; and 5. Motion for partial summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. The Court said that the plaintiffs have not successfully demonstrated that all or a substantial portion of the time lost under the rounding policy is actually compensable time, and that a genuine issue of fact exists as to such. Accordingly, the cross motion for summary judgment is denied as it relates to the rounding policy. The Defendant contends that the plaintiffs have proffered no evidence to establish that the out-of-state defendants are incorporated or headquartered in Virginia, or that they have had sufficient contacts with the state, such as employing potential opt-in members in Virginia. However, if the defendant entities operated as a single enterprise, jurisdiction would be appropriate. The Court will deny summary judgment as to the out-of-state defendants. The Plaintiffs allege that Jennmar failed to pay employees wages and overtime in violation of federal and state law. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that fifteen-minute time rounding policy, combined with mandatory safety and housekeeping pre-shift work, results in hourly employees performing approximately twenty minutes of unpaid compensable work per shift. Jennmar maintains that they prohibit hourly employees from any off-the-clock work, and that any off-the-clock work performed by the employees is either de minimis or non-compensable. Jennmar manufactures and assembles products for use in agricultural, construction, energy, and mining industries, with locations across the United States. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lIlljc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert W. T. Tucci, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Ave #400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 812-4744 The Defendants are represented by: K. Maxwell Bernas, Esq. Benjamin P. Fryer, Esq. FORDHARRISON LLP 271 17th Street NW, Suite 1900 Atlanta, GA 30363 KBR INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due November 18 ------------------------------------------------------------ Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until November 18, 2025 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against KBR, Inc. (NYSE: KBR), if they purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between May 6, 2025 and June 19, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. What You May Do If you purchased securities of KBR and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-kbr/ to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by November 18, 2025. About the Lawsuit KBR and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On June 19, 2025, HomeSafe Alliance ("HomeSafe"), a KBR joint venture in which KBR has a 72% economic interest, disclosed that it received "a notice from the U.S. Department of Defense's Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) terminating the Global Household Goods Contract, which HomeSafe won in 2021 to transform the military move system for the benefit of service members and their families." On this news, the price of KBR's shares fell $3.85 per share, or 7.29%, to close at $48.93 on June 20, 2025. On June 23, 2025, the next trading day, KBR stock fell a further $1.30, or 2.65%, to close at $47.63 on June 23, 2025. The case is Norrman v. KBR, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-04464. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. This past year, KSF was ranked by SCAS among the top 10 firms nationally based upon total settlement value. KSF serves a variety of clients, including public and private institutional investors, and retail investors - in seeking recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, Delaware, California, Louisiana, Chicago, New Jersey, and a representative office in Luxembourg. TOP 10 Plaintiff Law Firms - According to ISS Securities Class Action Services To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contact: Lewis Kahn, Esq. Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC (877) 515-1850 1100 Poydras St., Suite 960 New Orleans, LA 70163 E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com[GN] KEVIN PEDERSEN: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. KEVIN PEDERSEN, An Individual; MICHELE PEDERSEN, an Individual; and KM PEDERSEN ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A HOMESTEAD TIRE & AUTO CENTER, Case No. 1:25-cv-24659-RAR (S.D. Fla., Oct. 9, 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 33 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 is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, 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. KM PEDERSEN ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A HOMESTEAD TIRE & AUTO CENTER, owned and operated a commercial tire and auto shop located in Homestead, Florida.[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 KSR VENTURE: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Martinez Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KSR VENTURE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08303 (S.D.N.Y., October 8, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, and New York State General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://oramethod.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text equivalent, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. KSR Venture, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal LCT OPCO: Court OKs $450K Wage and Hour Settlement in "Paraham" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Christopher Paraham v. LCT OpCo LLC, Civil Action No. 24-3148 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Harvey Bartle, III of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted final approval of a collective action settlement under the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq.) and a class action settlement under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (43 P.S. Section 333.101 et seq.) and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (43 P.S. Section 260.1 et seq.). The settlement provides a maximum payout of $450,000. In July 2024, Plaintiff filed against La Colombe Holdings, Inc., and on November 6, 2024, he amended his complaint by substituting LCT OpCo LLC as the Defendant. Defendant operates as La Colombe, manufactures and sells coffee and related products, and owns and operates coffee shops in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington, D.C. Plaintiff asserted that Defendant violated federal and state laws by failing to pay hourly workers for all hours worked, including unpaid pre-shift activities and post-shift work, and by miscalculating the regular rate of pay for overtime. After the parties engaged in extensive investigation and analysis of payroll and timekeeping records and exchanged preliminary discovery, they participated in a successful mediation with Dina R. Jansenson, Esq. The parties executed a settlement agreement on June 4, 2025 and moved for preliminary approval that same day. On June 9, 2025, the Court granted preliminary approval. The settlement provides for compensation to two groups. The FLSA collective consists of all persons employed by Defendant or its predecessor, La Colombe Torrefaction Inc., as hourly-paid production workers in Pennsylvania or Michigan at any time between July 18, 2021, and October 13, 2024. The Rule 23 class encompasses hourly production workers in Pennsylvania during the same period. There are 850 FLSA collective members, of whom 260 individuals are also members of the Rule 23 class. Under the settlement agreement, members of the FLSA collective must submit a valid and timely claim form to receive a payment. Members of the Rule 23 state law class who have not opted out will receive automatic payments. Payments to class and collective members are allocated based on factors including the number of workweeks, pay rate, additional compensation received, and location, and are intended to reflect each member's potential recovery under the claims asserted. The settlement agreement provides for a maximum payment from Defendant of $450,000, which includes distributions to collective and class members as well as attorneys' fees ($150,000), litigation costs ($6,000), settlement administration expenses ($19,000), and the named Plaintiff's service award ($10,000). After subtracting those costs, the amount available to collective and class members is $265,000. This figure represents roughly 72% of collective and class members' estimated unpaid wages. The net settlement amount allocates 67.22% to the FLSA collective and 32.78% to the Rule 23 class. Unclaimed FLSA collective funds will revert to the Defendant. Unredeemed class funds will be distributed to Philabundance, a nonprofit organization selected by the parties as the cy pres beneficiary. Settlement administrator Madely Nava, a case manager of Apex Class Action, LLC, estimated that its notice program reached approximately 97.9% of collective and class members. As of September 15, 2025, it received 244 claim forms from the FLSA Collective Members (a claim rate of 28.7%). Apex Class Action has not received any requests for exclusion or any objections. Of those 244 claimants, eighty-three are also members of the Rule 23 class. Nava estimated Defendant stands to pay a total of $152,563.62 from the settlement fund to participating collective and class members. Specifically, the 244 participating collective members stand to receive $65,703.64 and the 260 participating class members stand to receive $86,859.98. Per-person payments average $179.49 The Court found that a bona fide dispute exists. The Court determined that Plaintiff and the other 850 collective members are similarly situated, as they were all hourly-paid production workers employed in Defendant's Pennsylvania or Michigan production facilities, all had similarly hourly pay structures and circumstances of employment, and all advance claims that Defendant miscalculated the regular rate of overtime pay. The Court applied the nine-factor test outlined in Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153, 157 (3d Cir. 1975), to assess the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed settlement. The Court found that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate for both the class components and the collective action components. The Court noted that the settlement resolves a dispute that could otherwise linger for years, was negotiated at arm's length with an experienced mediator, and no one has objected to or disputed the settlement. The Court found that the class satisfies the prerequisites set forth in Rule 23(a), including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. The Court determined that the class may be certified under Rule 23(b)(3) for money damages, finding that common issues of law or fact predominate over individualized issues and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The Court confirmed the appointment of Brown, LLC as Class Counsel, finding that the firm negotiated the settlement agreement with years of experience with class actions under federal and state wage laws and expended more than 203 hours investigating Plaintiff's claims. The Court approved attorneys' fees for lead counsel in the amount of $150,000, representing 33.33% of the settlement fund. The Court applied the seven Gunter factors from Gunter v. Ridgewood Energy Corp., 223 F.3d 190, 195 n.1 (3d Cir. 2000), and found that an attorneys' fee of 33% of the settlement is fair and reasonable, noting that such an award is typical for lead counsel in similar settlements in this district. The Court approved reimbursement of litigation expenses totaling $5,291.60 for counsel and $19,000 in settlement administration costs. The Court found such expenses reasonable, noting that of the more than 800 class members, only 18 were undeliverable after skip tracing. The Court approved a service award of $10,000 for named Plaintiff Christopher Paraham, finding that he meaningfully advanced the litigation by supplying counsel with information and documents that facilitated their investigation, assisting in identifying and explaining relevant timekeeping and pay practices, and helping counsel evaluate Defendant's payroll data for purposes of the damages analysis. The Court noted that while this award is on the high end of service awards approved in this district, no class or collective member has objected. Accordingly, the Court certified the FLSA collective and the state law class, found the terms of the settlement to be fair and reasonable, and approved the settlement in its entirety. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M5u6Yo from PacerMonitor.com LIVEOPS INC: Barajas Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------ MARIELA ALEXANDRA BARAJAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIVEOPS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-09608 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 8, 2025) alleges violation of the California Trap and Trace Law. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant used data broker software on its website, https://liveops.com, to secretly collect data about a Website visitor's computer, location, and browsing habits. The data broker software then compiles this data, and correlates it with extensive external records the data broker already has about most Californians, for the purpose of learning the identity of the Website visitor. The Defendant's installation and use of data broker software without obtaining consent is a violation of the California Trap and Trace Law, says the suit. LiveOps, Inc. provides staffing solutions. The Company offers customer services, outbound, inbound, lead generation, interactive voice response, and learning workforces. LiveOps serves retail, healthcare, insurance, telecom, direct response, and travel and hospitality industries in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 Email: rtauler@taulersmith.com eshapiro@taulersmith.com LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Dec. 16 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT HUBBLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-11173-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Thomas L. Ludington entered an order modifying case management and scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Expert disclosure, Defendant served by: Nov. 29, 2025 Class certification motion filed by: Dec. 16, 2025 Class certification motion response Feb. 27, 2026 filed by: Class certification motion reply filed by: March 21, 2026 Discovery motions filed by: April 25, 2026 Discovery cutoff: May 29, 2026 Motions challenging experts filed by: July 27, 2026 LoanDepot is an Irvine, California-based nonbank holding company which sells mortgage and non-mortgage lending products. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tHvPgZ at no extra charge.[CC] LOUISIANA: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Giroir Suit to 5th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES M. LEBLANC, Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, et al., are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Joel Giroir, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. James M. LeBlanc, Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00108, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of Civil Rights Act. On Sept. 10, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class. On July 20, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a notice of supplemental authority in support of his motion to certify class. On Sept. 22, 2025, Judge John W. deGravelles entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion to certify class. The motion is granted in that a class will be certified as follows: All persons who have been remanded to the custody of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DOC) since April 16, 2019, and who were entitled to release at the time of their remand (either pursuant to sentencing or parole revocation), but who were released by the DOC more than 48 hours past the date that they were remanded to the DOCs custody due to the Defendants failure to implement and maintain an adequate process for timely releasing inmates. The motion is denied in that claims for emotional distress and mental anguish shall be severed. The appellate case is entitled LeBlanc v. Giroir, Case No. 25-90027, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on October 7, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent JOEL GIROIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: William Brock Most, Esq. MOST & ASSOCIATES 201 Saint Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 509-5023 - and - Samantha Bosalavage Pourciau, Esq. PROMISE OF JUSTICE INITIATIVE 1024 Elysian Fields Avenue New Orleans, LA 70117 Telephone: (845) 826-1883 Defendants-Petitioners JAMES M. LEBLANC, Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, et al., are represented by: Elizabeth Lauren Brown, Esq. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1885 N. 3rd Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Telephone: (225) 406-1864 MAREX GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due December 8 --------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized law firm, notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Marex Group plc ("Marex" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: MRX) and certain of its officers. Class Definition This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Marex securities between May 16, 2024 and August 5, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/MRX. Case Details The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Marex sold over-the-counter financial products to itself, creating undisclosed conflicts of interest; (2) The Company's financial statements contained significant inconsistencies between subsidiaries and related parties; (3) As a result of these discrepancies, Marex's financial statements were not reliable; (4) Based on these facts, the Company's public statements regarding its business, operations, and financial condition were false and materially misleading throughout the Class Period; (5) When the market learned the truth about Marex, investors suffered damages. What's Next? A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site: bgandg.com/MRX. or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 332-239-2660. If you suffered a loss in Marex you have until December 8, 2025, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. There is No Cost to You We represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis. That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket expenses and attorneys' fees, usually a percentage of the total recovery, only if we are successful. Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Nathan Miller, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC (332) 239-2660 info@bgandg.com [GN] METROPOLIS TECHNOLOGIES: Scares Drivers Into Paying Exorbitant Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MAHER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. METROPOLIS TECHNOLOGIES INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2025LA001229 (Ill. Cir., 18th Judicial, Dupage Cty., September 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unlawfully obtaining and using personal information of Plaintiff and other drivers from their driver motor vehicle records in violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant operates parking facilities autonomously through the use of license plate reading technology and cameras that allow Defendant to track vehicles when they enter and exit Defendant's facilities. Rather than employing parking lot attendants, the Defendant requires customers to pay for parking through Defendant's web platform, which includes a mobile application. However, the Defendant utilizes the license plate numbers it scans or records to obtain personal information from individuals' DMV records, including their name and address. In order to collect supposed outstanding payments, the Defendant then sends individuals' notices designed to look like official citations to addresses associated with the license plate number in the individuals' DMV records, asserts the suit. In the notices, the Defendant not only requests payment of the "parking fare" purportedly owed, but also attempts to assess an additional "notice fee" that is several multiples of the fare. The Defendant threatens that if payment is not made in full within 30 days, the target of the notice may be subject to additional fees or even to having their vehicle booted or towed. Thus, the Defendant attempts to profit off the illegal use of individuals' personal information obtained through their DMV records by scaring them into paying exorbitant sums, the suit alleges. Metropolis Technologies Inc. operates parking facilities across Illinois and across DuPage County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq. KINGSBURY LAW LLC 8 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 291-1960 E-mail: tim@kingsburylawllc.com - and - Kasif Khowaja, Esq. Paul A. Castiglione, Esq. THE KHOWAJA LAW FIRM LLC 8 S. Michigan Ave., 26th Fl. Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 566-8070 E-mail: kasif@khowajalaw.com pcastiglione@khowajalaw.com MICROMOBILITY.COM INC: Barro Seeks to Certify Purchaser Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN BARRON, ET AL., v. MICROMOBILITY.COM, INC. (F/K/A HELBIZ INC.) ET AL., Case No. 1:20-cv-04703-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b) as follows: 1. Certify a Class of purchasers of Helbiz Coin from Jan. 1, 2018 to Jan. 1, 2023 (the "Class") 2. Appoint the Named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; 3. Appoint Loevy & Loevy as Class Counsel for the Class. The Plaintiffs seek certification of claims pursuant 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq. (RICO) against the Defendant micromobility.com Inc. and the individual defendants. The Plaintiffs also seek certification of their respondeat superior claim against the Defendant Skrill USA Inc. Micromobility.com provides dockless intra urban transportation solutions. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=61Gta1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Kanovitz, Esq. Jon Loevy, Esq. Julia Rickert, Esq. Heather Lewis Donnell, Esq. Anand Swaminathan, Esq. Isaac Green, Esq. Jacob Costello, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 311 N. Aberdeen Street Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 243-5900 E-mail: www.loevy.com MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Antitrust Class Lawsuit Over OpenAI Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that Microsoft (MSFT.O), is facing a new lawsuit from consumers who allege the technology giant illegally inflated prices for generative artificial intelligence through a secret agreement with ChatGPT maker OpenAI. The proposed class action filed in San Francisco federal court claims Microsoft used an exclusive cloud computing deal with OpenAI to restrict the supply of computational resources needed to run ChatGPT. Microsoft has invested more than $13 billion in OpenAI to date. The lawsuit said the deal Microsoft struck early in OpenAI's development violated federal antitrust law by restraining market competition and artificially driving up ChatGPT subscription prices, while hurting product quality for millions of users of the AI platform. Although the alleged restraints on OpenAI have since eased, they remain as "a sword of Damocles over OpenAI wielded by one of its principal competitors,” the lawsuit said. Microsoft in a statement said that while it was still reviewing the lawsuit, "we believe that our OpenAI partnership promotes competition, innovation, and responsible AI development." OpenAI, which is not named as a defendant, declined to comment. Attorneys for the 11 consumers who filed the lawsuit did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Microsoft in 2019 first announced it was investing $1 billion in San Francisco-based OpenAI, saying it had forged a multi-year partnership to develop AI supercomputing technologies on Microsoft's Azure cloud computing service. OpenAI, founded in 2015 as a nonprofit, has since moved to restructure itself into a for-profit company. The lawsuit said Microsoft exploited its agreement with OpenAI to profit from its success while preparing its own rival products, including the AI platform Copilot. ChatGPT prices were substantially higher than competitors' during a price war earlier this year, the lawsuit said. The alleged restraint on OpenAI was partially lifted in June when OpenAI began purchasing compute power from Google, according to the lawsuit. The plaintiffs seek damages for alleged overcharges dating back to ChatGPT's launch in November 2022, as well as a court order to stop Microsoft from reimposing the restrictions. The case is Samuel Bryant et al v. Microsoft Corp, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 3:25-cv-08733. For plaintiffs: Yavar Bathaee and Brian Dunne of Bathaee Dunne For defendant: No appearance yet [GN] MINWAX : Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------- Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Sherwin-Williams Company d/b/a Minwax, Case No. 0:25-cv-03887-ECT-LIB (D. Minn., Oct. 9, 2025), is brought arising because the Defendant's Website (www.minwax.com) 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 the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"). As a consequence of Plaintiffs experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on their behalf, Plaintiffs found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiffs full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiffs would like to, intend 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. 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 Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs are and have been legally blind and are therefore disabled. The Defendant offers wood finishing products for sale including, but not limited to, wood preparation products, stains, protective finishes, specialty finishes, hardwood floor products, wood maintenance and repair products and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a lawsuit has been filed against Molina Healthcare, Inc. (NYSE: MOH) and certain of the Company's senior executives for potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Molina, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/molina-healthcare-inc-class-action. Investors have until December 2, 2025, to ask the Court to be appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in Molina securities. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and is captioned: Hindlemann v. Molina Healthcare, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-9461. Why Was Molina Sued Under the Federal Securities Laws? Molina is a health insurance company that provides managed healthcare services to low-income individuals under Medicaid and Medicare programs. During the relevant period, Molina stated that the Company's "earnings growth profile" was "solid heading into 2025." The Company also told investors that it "continuously monitor[ed] utilization patterns" and that it was able to "mitigate the negative effects of healthcare cost inflation." In truth, as alleged, Molina faced increased medical costs pressures that it could not mitigate due to increased utilization in all three of its business lines. The Stock Declines as the Truth Is Revealed On July 7, 2025, Molina revealed that its Q2 2025 adjusted earnings were approximately $5.50 per share, which was "below its prior expectations" due to "medical cost pressures in all three lines of business." The Company announced it "expects these medical cost pressures to continue into the second half of the year" and cut guidance for expected adjusted earnings per share by 10.2% at the midpoint to a "range of $21.50 to $22.50 per share." Then, on July 23, 2025, Molina revealed that it "now expects its full year 2025 adjusted earnings to be no less than $19.00 per diluted share." Molina stated this was due to a "challenging medical cost trend environment," including increased "utilization of behavioral health, pharmacy, and inpatient and outpatient services." On this news, the price of Molina stock fell $32.03 per share, or 16.8%, from $190.25 per share on July 23, 2025, to $158.22 per share on July 24, 2025. Visit link for more information: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/molina-healthcare-inc-class-action. What Can You Do? If you invested in Molina you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/molina-healthcare-inc-class-action Or contact: Ross Shikowitz ross@bfalaw.com (212) 789-3619 Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? BFA is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It has been named a top plaintiff law firm by Chambers USA, The Legal 500, and ISS SCAS, and its attorneys have been named "Elite Trial Lawyers" by the National Law Journal, among the top "500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers" by Lawdragon, "Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar" by Law360 and "SuperLawyers" by Thomson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit https://www.bfalaw.com. https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/molina-healthcare-inc-class-action [GN] NAHON SAHAROVICH: Attys Get $77K in "Garbarino" Data Breach Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Susan Garbarino, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nahon, Saharovich, & Trotz, PLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-01326-JMB (E.D. Mo.), United States Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Service Award and granted Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. On October 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit against Defendant, a personal injury law firm, alleging that it was the subject of a cyber-attack that resulted in a data breach of Plaintiff's and others' protected health information (PHI) and personally identifiable information (PII). According to the Complaint, the data breach occurred on June 28, 2023, but Plaintiff and Class Members were not informed of the breach until September 12, 2023. Defendant filed its answer to the Complaint on December 7, 2023, and a Case Management Order was entered on January 23, 2024. The parties engaged in two mediations, on March 27, 2024, and July 23, 2024. On August 2, 2024, they filed a Joint Notice of Settlement. As indicated in Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement, there are approximately 15,623 individual potential class members. The parties agreed to a settlement fund amount of $232,500 to be divided on a pro rata basis to class members after deducting attorney fees and costs, administrative costs, an incentive award to Plaintiff, and reimbursement to any class member for actual damages/losses traceable to the data breach. Thereafter, an Order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement was entered. In that Order, the Settlement Class was defined as follows: All individuals within the United States of America whose Personal Information was potentially exposed to unauthorized third parties as a result of the Data Security Incident. The Court approved Plaintiff as a class representative, appointed class counsel, and appointed Epiq as the claims administrator. The Court also approved the plan to notify the settlement class of the pendency of the litigation, the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, their rights under the proposed agreement, including their right to object, and other matters consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and other applicable laws. A final approval hearing was set for September 4, 2025. At that final approval hearing, the parties appeared by counsel. No class members appeared and no objections were made to the proposed settlement agreement. Counsel represented that the notification scheme was largely successful, that Epiq received 927 total claims, and that no class member objected to the terms of the settlement agreement. The parties also represented that no class member sought reimbursement for damages/loss attributable to the data breach and that the time for submitting a claim has passed. The Court certified the following class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b) for settlement purposes only: All individuals within the United States of America whose Personal Information was potentially exposed to unauthorized third parties as a result of the Data Security Incident. The Settlement Class specifically excludes: Defendant and Defendant's parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, and directors and any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest, all individuals who make a timely election to be excluded from this proceeding using the correct protocol for opting out, any and all federal, state, or local governments, including but not limited to its departments, agencies, divisions, bureaus, boards, sections, groups, counsel, and/or subdivisions, and all judges assigned to hear any aspect of this litigation, as well as their immediate family members. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) provides that the claims, issues, or defenses of a certified class may be settled, voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court's approval. The court may approve a settlement if, taken as a whole, it is fair, adequate and reasonable. The Court found that the proposed Settlement Agreement is the result of extensive, arm's length negotiations by competent counsel and that it is substantively fair, reasonable, and adequate. In evaluating fairness, the Court considered: (1) the merits of the plaintiff's case weighed against the terms of the settlement; (2) the defendant's financial condition; (3) the complexity and expense of further litigation; and (4) the amount of opposition to the settlement. The Court concluded that the settlement represents a favorable result given the uncertainty of the trial, significant risks of delays, and potential adverse outcomes given the nature of the data breach. The settlement terms reflect the strength of Plaintiff's claims while avoiding the need for a burdensome trial. There is no question that Defendant is financially capable of paying the settlement amount. Continued litigation would be both costly and uncertain. Despite the size of the settlement class and effective notice, no member has objected to the settlement. The Court found that the class representative and class counsel have adequately represented the class. Class counsel has significant experience litigating data breach claims and has negotiated a significant benefit for class members. That negotiation was extensive and at arm's length, comprising of two mediations and the exchange of significant documents. Accordingly, the Court found the settlement is the result of informed, arms-length negotiations, that it is fair and reasonable, and that it represents a sound compromise between the uncertainties of continued litigation and the substantial benefits of settlement. Class Counsel sought an award of attorney fees in the amount of 33 percent ($77,492) of the total settlement fund ($232,500). In addition, Class Counsel requested an award of litigation costs and expenses in the amount of $3,429. Both the requested fees and expenses were disclosed in the notice provided to all potential Class Members. The Court found that an award of 33 percent of the settlement fund is consistent with fee awards approved within the Eighth Circuit. This case has been ongoing since 2023 and has involved motion practice, informal but extensive discovery, and two mediations. In addition, Class Counsel has relevant experience in complex class action litigation, including matters involving data privacy issues. Class Counsel effectively negotiated a settlement on behalf of the class and ensured an adequate notice process. The settlement agreement drew no objections from Class Members. The Court also conducted a lodestar cross-check on the attorney fee award. The Court determined that the award corresponds to a lodestar multiplier of 1.03, that hours expended and rates submitted by Class Counsel are reasonable, and that the multiplier is consistent with those approved in comparable cases. With respect to litigation costs, Class Counsel has submitted an itemized list of expenses for filing and service, mediation, and copies and supplies, totaling $3,429. The Court found these expenses were reasonably and necessarily incurred during the litigation and are therefore recoverable. Class counsel also sought a service award of $2,500 for the named Plaintiff in recognition of Plaintiff's efforts in this case. The Court found the requested award reasonable and accordingly approved a service award of $2,500 to the class representative. Accordingly, the Court ordered that the Settlement Agreement submitted by the parties for the Settlement Class is approved pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. The Court awarded $77,492 as reasonable Attorneys' Fees and reimbursement for litigation fees in the amount of $3,429, to be paid by Defendant from the settlement fund. Furthermore, Settlement Administrator Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., is awarded $58,000, to be paid by Defendant. Representative Plaintiff is awarded the sum of $2,500 to be paid by Defendant from the settlement fund, in consideration for the service she has performed for, and on behalf, of the Settlement Class. A copy of the Court's settlement is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=490zdy from PacerMonitor.com NATIONAL GRID: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of National Grid plc (NYSE: NGG) resulting from allegations that National Grid plc may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased National Grid securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=41344 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On July 2, 2025, Reuters published an article entitled "'Preventable' National Grid failures led to Heathrow fire, findings say." The article stated that a "fire that shut London's Heathrow airport in March, stranding thousands of people, was caused by the UK power grid's failure to maintain an electricity substation, an official report, prompting the energy watchdog to open a probe." Further, the article stated that the United Kingdom's Energy minister, Ed Miliband, had "called the report "deeply concerning", after it concluded that the issue which caused the fire was identified seven years ago but went unaddressed by power grid operator National Grid[.]" On this news, National Grid American Depositary Shares' ("ADSs") fell 5%, on July 2, 2024. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] NEW HAMPSHIRE: Clark Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CLARK, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. JOHN M. FORMELLA, in his official capacity only as Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire, Case No. 1:25-cv-00379-PB-AJ (D.N.H.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- Granting his Motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel; and -- Appointing Attorneys Gilles Bissonnette and Henry Klementowicz from the ACLU of New Hampshire as Class Counsel. This Motion seeks certification with respect to Count I (Fourteenth Amendment Due Process/Vagueness) and Count II (Fourth Amendment) of the following class: "All persons against whom Defendant—including all of the Defendant's officers, troopers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and other persons in active concert or participation with the Defendant, including but not limited to every New Hampshire County Attorney, municipal prosecutor, police prosecutor, or peace officer—is enforcing, or will enforce, RSA 644:6." The lawsuit is a facial challenge to New Hampshire's "Loitering or Prowling" statute. Through this statute, the State unconstitutionally makes illegal innocent human behaviors that pose no threat to people or society. The proposed class satisfies the numerosity requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) because the proposed class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The class meets the commonality requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). The proposed class meets the typicality requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) because the claims of the proposed class representative are typical of the claims of the class. The adequacy requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) also are met. The proposed class representative seeks the same relief as the other members of the class—among other things, a declaratory judgment that RSA 644:6 is facially unconstitutional and an injunction against enforcement of this statute. The proposed class also satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IxNXAb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gilles R. Bissonnette, Esq. Henry R. Klementowicz, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Concord, NH 03301 Telephone: (603) 224.5591 E-mail: gilles@aclu-nh.org henry@aclu-nh.org NEW YORK TIMES: Hoffman Suit Removed to D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Harold M. Hoffman, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. The New York Times Company, Case No. BER L 005816 25 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Sept. 29, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-16103 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The New York Times Company -- https://www.nytco.com/ -- is an American mass media corporation that publishes The New York Times and its associated publications.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Laura Ellen Sedlak, Esq. David L. Cook, Esq. SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS P.C. One Riverfront Plaza Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 643-4286 Email: lsedlak@sillscummis.com dcook@sillscummis.com NEW YORK, NY: Partially Wins Bid for Summary Judgment ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO et al., v. City of New York et al Case No. 1:18-cv-04476-LJL-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis Liman entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Specifically, the Defendants' motion with respect to the Plaintiffs' disparate impact claims is denied without prejudice. The motion is granted with respect to the Plaintiffs' disparate treatment and equal protection claims. The Plaintiffs' cross-motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Erath is denied. Because Defendants have been prejudiced, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ equal protection arguments have been neither expressly nor impliedly raised under Rule 15(b)(2). Those claims are accordingly dismissed To the extent Plaintiffs argue that the reports and testimony go to issues relating to summary judgment, the Court has already explained that there is no apparent conflict between the propositions offered by Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ experts. Even if there were, that has not resulted in summary judgment for Defendants. The Plaintiffs’ motion is denied without prejudice. The case concerns certain promotional policies, practices, and procedures within the Emergency Medical Services Bureau of the New York City Fire Department. The Plaintiffs bring claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VMj2k3 at no extra charge.[CC] NEWELL BRANDS INC: Corbett Files Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newell Brands Inc. The case is styled as Monica Corbett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Newell Brands Inc. d/b/a Sunbeam Products, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-05616 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 7, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Newell Brands Inc. -- https://www.newellbrands.com/ -- is an American manufacturer, marketer and distributor of consumer and commercial products.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. NINTENDO OF AMERICA: J.A. Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as J.A., a minor, represented by his mother Andrea Deams, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Nintendo of America, Inc., Case No. 2:25-mc-00048-TL was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Sept. 29, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-mc-80300-AGT to the proceeding. Nintendo of America, Inc. -- https://www.nintendo.com/us/ -- is a Japanese multinational video game company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julie C. Erickson, Esq. Kevin M. Osborne, Esq. ERICKSON KRAMER OSBORNE LLP 959 Natoma St. San Francisco, CA 94103 Phone: (415) 635-0631 Fax: (415) 599-8088 Email: julie@eko.law kevin@eko.law - and - Kim D. Stephens, Esq. TOUSLEY, BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 682-5600 Fax: (206) 682-2992 Email: kstephens@tousley.com The Defendant is represented by: Tyler Reese Bowen, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 2525 E. Camelback Road, Suite 500 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: (602) 351-8448 Fax: (602) 648-7007 Email: tbowen@perkinscoie.com - and - Shylah Renee Alfonso, Esq. PERKINS COIE (SEA) 1301 Second Ave., Ste. 4200 Seattle, WA 98101-3804 Phone: (206) 359-3980 Email: salfonso@perkinscoie.com NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Dunbar Sues Over Defective Class Vehicles --------------------------------------------------------------- John H. Dunbar, Joyce Mills, Natalie Parker, Paul Menton, Paul Daubel, Anthony Hickerson, Pamela Winterburn, and Claire Ransom, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-01121 (M.D. Tenn., Oct. 1, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for unjust enrichment and fraudulent concealment as a result of the Defendant's Nissans in all model years from 2015 to the present (collectively, the "Class Vehicles") Which contained defects. The Class Vehicles all suffer from a paint defect that causes the Class Vehicles' white paint to fail, peel, delaminate (that is, the paint layers separate due to adhesion issues), bubble, and flake (the "Paint Defect"). The Paint Defect stems from a defect in the paint itself; a defect in the paint when applied to the Class Vehicles' exterior; and/or a defect in Nissan's manufacturing process, including the complexities in the method of applying the white paint to give the Class Vehicles their pearlescent or metallic finish. Nissan was aware of the Paint Defect based on internal testing, substantially similar paint problems with other Nissan vehicle models, and countless consumer complaints. Despite that knowledge and duty, Nissan has repeatedly failed to disclose, and even actively concealed, the Paint Defect from Class members and the public, and continued to market the Class Vehicles as luxurious, stylish, high-quality, high value, and value-retaining vehicles which, because of the Paint Defect, they are not. although it knew about the Paint Defect in its white vehicles, Nissan refused to repair them, refused to repaint them, and failed to provide an adequate remedy to the Class. Nissan has refused, and continues to refuse, to provide repairs or any other meaningful remedy to those who have suffered economic harm because of the Paint Defect. As a direct and proximate result of Nissan's deceit regarding, and failure to disclose, the Paint Defect, Plaintiffs and Class members: overpaid for the Class Vehicles because the Paint Defect significantly diminishes the value of the Class Vehicles; now own Class Vehicles that suffer premature unsightly paint failures; must expend significant money to have their Class Vehicles (inadequately) repaired and repainted; and now own vehicles that are impaired and are worth less than they would be if they did not have the Paint Defect, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are owners and lessees who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles. Nissan has been responsible for designing, manufacturing, distributing, marketing, selling, and servicing Nissan vehicles in the United States, including the Class Vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq. Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq. HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI AND WALL PLLC 1920 Adelicia Street, Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37212 Phone: (615) 800-6225 Email: joey@hsglawgroup.com ben@hsglawgroup.com - and - Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 205 Hudson Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10013 Phone: (212) 421-6492 Facsimile: (212) 421-6553 Email: stephen@sfclasslaw.com NORDSTROM INC: Ayala Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mark Ayala, individually, and on behalf of members of the general public and the putative class members similarly situated v. NORDSTROM INC., a Washington State corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01497014-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Sept. 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-02035-DOC-JDE. The Plaintiff's Complaint contains ten causes of action for unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, failure to timely pay wages at termination, failure to timely pay wages during employment, non-compliant wage statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed business expenses and violation of Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Julie A. Dunne, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92121-2133 Phone: (858) 677-1400 Fax: (858) 677-1401 Email: julie.dunne@us.dlapiper.com - and - Stephen L. Taeusch, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 3203 Hanover St., Suite 100 Palo Alto, CA 94304-1123 Phone: (650) 833-2000 Fax: (650) 833-2001 Email: stephen.taeusch@us.dlapiper.com - and - Andrea O. Bergam, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 303 Colorado Street, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512) 457-7000 Fax: (512) 457-7000 Email: andrea.bergam@us.dlapiper.com NORIGAMI INC: Doncouse Sues Over Discrimination on Premises ----------------------------------------------------------- Graciela Doncouse, and other similarly situated disabled individuals v. NORIGAMI INC., and DUE MILLA REALTY GROUP LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-08275 (S.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 May 17, 2025, and on other occasions. Plaintiff attempted to enter Defendants' Premises, which operates as a uniquely designed art Inspired Japanese omakase restaurant that offers a sketchbook style ambiance unlike anywhere lese. Defendants' Premises is less than 1.7 from Plaintiffs home, where she hangs out and socializes with friends, making the restaurant a convenient and familiar destination for her. Because the existing barriers prevent access and restrict the paths of travel, such as 2 steps at the entrance, Plaintiff was unable to enter Defendants' Premises. Because the existing barriers prevent access and restrict the paths of travel, such as 2 steps 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. Norigami 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 NORTH MEMORIAL: Partially Wins Discovery Bid in "Kaliher" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Heidi Kaliher and Tracey Knight, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. North Memorial Health Care, d/b/a North Memorial Health, Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-440 (KMM/DLM) (D. Minn.), Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to compel production of documents and responses to interrogatories. This is a case about privacy rights and internet tracking. Plaintiffs Gregg Lurie, Heidi Kaliher, and Tracy Knight filed suit against Defendant North Memorial Health Care for violations of state and federal law stemming from North's alleged harvesting and sharing of the Plaintiffs' sensitive medical information with third parties. Plaintiffs are current and former patients at North, and each interacted with North's websites for purposes of researching health information, medical conditions, and treatments. Each Plaintiff claims to have subsequently received targeted advertisements related to these searches and interactions. Plaintiffs allege that North secretly tracked their online activity on North's websites—both its general webpage and its password-protected patient portal—through an embedded software developed by Meta Platform, Inc., known as a pixel. The tracking data was then, allegedly, collated by Meta to create targeted advertising deployed on Plaintiffs' social media accounts. Plaintiffs filed their original complaint in February of 2023. Defendant North moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims in full. That motion was granted as to two counts and denied as to five others. Plaintiffs then filed their Second Amended Complaint setting out their remaining claims: Violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; Violations of the Minnesota Wiretap Act; Violations of Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act; Violations of Minnesota Health Records Act; and Unjust Enrichment. This matter is now in discovery, with North's motion focused on areas where Plaintiffs have failed to fully respond to North's discovery requests. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 entitles parties to liberal discovery of any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Courts construe the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) broadly, but the scope of discovery includes only what is relevant to the actual claims or defenses that are at issue. It is the party that seeks discovery who must make a threshold showing that the information sought is relevant to the claims or defenses in the case. If that occurs, then the party resisting production bears the burden of establishing lack of relevancy or undue burden. Beyond being relevant, Rule 26 requires that information sought in discovery also be proportional to the needs of the case. Factors important to a court's proportionality analysis include the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. A court may find that a request on its face is not proportional to the needs of the case, given the relevance of the requested discovery. Naturally, a party cannot be compelled to produce documents not in its possession. A party's assertion that it has fully produced discoverable materials must be accepted at face value by the Court. An issue common to each dispute is the scope of North's requests. North represents that Plaintiffs appear to suggest that their personal information could only have been collected and disclosed because of their use of North's websites. From North's perspective, all of Plaintiffs' interactions with the internet are relevant to its defenses because those interactions provide alternative explanation for how Plaintiffs' sensitive information reached the internet. Moreover, says North, this liberal framing is appropriate to assess Plaintiffs' standing to bring suit under the traceability doctrine. North also contends that each Plaintiffs' unlimited and individual interactions with the internet go to the issue of class certification under the commonality inquiry. For their part, Plaintiffs contend that 1) North's Motion is moot; 2) that North seeks irrelevant information; and 3) that North did not comply with Local Rule 7.1 such that the Motion is not ripe for adjudication. Plaintiffs have, of their own initiative, narrowed Defendant's original requests to what they deem relevant, and then responded according to those narrowed requests. A party cannot unilaterally narrow their adversary's discovery requests and then assert mootness by responding only to the narrowed request. Looking solely to the requests as written, the Court largely agrees that Defendant seeks a trove of irrelevant information. Through many document requests and interrogatories, Defendant seeks information on all internet activity, devices, applications, and accounts for Plaintiffs and non-parties alike without limitation, including the personal contact details for non-parties who may have interacted with said accounts and devices. In doing so, North attempts to unearth a heap of irrelevant information that is not proportional to the needs of this case. However, for many such requests, North's Proposed Order—filed contemporaneously with its Memorandum—offers a tailored version of its overbroad requests. At the hearing, North confirmed that it was seeking relief consistent with its Proposed Order, rather than based on its discovery requests as originally written. The Court granted North's motion with respect to Interrogatory No. 3. The heart of Plaintiffs' allegations involve North's misuse of Plaintiffs' health data. As such, North is entitled to explore what other sources may be collecting such information. Plaintiffs are ordered to supplement their responses to Interrogatory No. 3 to include email accounts, devices, and media used for health-care related matters. The Court granted North's motion with respect to Interrogatory No. 10 and Request for Production No. 15. North narrows its initial requests and asks the Court to compel the production of emails the Plaintiffs sent or received relating to their health status, North Memorial, or any other health care-related issues. The Court granted North's motion with respect to Interrogatory No. 6 and Request for Production No. 10. Plaintiffs' social media usage and records are highly relevant to their claims, and to the defenses available to North. North is entitled to defend against liability by exploring whether Plaintiffs' private health information was actually tracked through sources other than North. The Court denied Defendant's motion to compel further response for Interrogatory Nos. 13-16. In Interrogatory No. 13, North requests that Plaintiffs identify by name, address, and telephone number all persons who live in Plaintiffs' household who use a device that connects to the internet. The Court agrees that there may be some marginal relevance to this interrogatory, but that relevance is far outweighed by the breadth of the request and the burden of responding. Seeking the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of Plaintiffs' nonparty household members and their various iPhones, laptops, tablets seems mostly like fishing. The Court granted North's motion with respect to Interrogatory No. 17. Plaintiffs must identify any application downloaded that was used for health-care related matters. This includes not only health-based applications but also applications used as a vehicle for any health-related matter. Beyond this, general information on each and every application, unrelated to Plaintiffs' health and medical activity, represents too broad and burdensome a request. The Court granted North's motion with respect to Request for Production Nos. 11-12. Full browsing and search history is a footprint of intimate and comprehensive data about a person, most of which would be irrelevant to North. However, North's Proposed Order seeks narrowed relief. It confirmed that it is seeking Plaintiffs' internet search and browsing history relating to their physical or mental health status, status as a patient at North, or any other health-care related issues. Plaintiffs' internet activity related to their health bears directly on several issues in this case, and the narrowed requests seek that information. The Court denied North's motion with respect to Request for Production No. 13. As written, this request is uniquely ambiguous. While North has attempted to modify this request via its Proposed Order, the Court does not accept those revisions. It is overbroad as written, and North has offered no cogent narrowed formulation. Accordingly, the Court ordered that Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery is granted in part. To the extent that additional production of discovery is ordered, the parties must produce it within twenty-one days of this Order. The parties shall each bear their own costs and fees related to this motion. A copy of the Court's settlement is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TlMdW2 from PacerMonitor.com NORTHERN STAR: Bybee Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------- Casey Bybee, individually and for others similarly situated v. NORTHERN STAR (POGO) LLC, (D. Alaska, Oct. 1, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages in violation the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Alaska Wage and Hour Act ("AWHA"). The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 8 hours a day and 40 hours a week. But the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. Rather, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees to prepare and put on protective clothing and safety gear fundamentally necessary to perform their jobs, "off the clock," while on the Defendant's premises. Additionally, the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for the hours they work in excess of 8 a day and 40 a week. Instead, the Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees non-discretionary bonuses, including safety and quality bonuses, stock bonuses, and performance bonuses, that the Defendant fails to include in their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes (the Defendant's "bonus pay scheme"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Bull Gang Miner Tech 3 from May 2024 to March 2025. Northern Star bills itself as a "global-scale gold producer with three production centres, operating in world class locations of Western Australia and Alaska."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Garyth Poulson, Esq. POULSON LAW LLC 636 Harris Street Juneau, AK 99801 Phone: (907) 586-6529 Email: jack@poulson.law - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Claims in LCG Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Liberty Capital Group, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-04822-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Rakoff entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the putative class action complaint. The Court dismisses defendants Oppenheimer Holdings Inc, and Oppenheimer Asset Management Inc. from the litigation. The Court also dismisses Liberty's Fourth cause of action, for negligence, and Liberty's seventh cause of action, for unjust enrichment. The Court grants Liberty leave to amend the CAC with respect to the two dismissed causes of action. The Court otherwise denies defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court will hold a hearing on class certification at 2:00 p.m. on Nov. 21, 2025. The parties are directed to jointly call chambers to discuss a briefing schedule on class certification., All other deadlines remain unchanged. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket number 30. Oppenheimer is an American multinational independent investment bank and financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oSG0Um at no extra charge.[CC] ORLANDO HEALTH: Plaintiff Files Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as W.W., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Orlando Health, Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-01068-JSS-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed Classes, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Joseph Lyon and Clint Watson of the Lyon Firm, W.B. Markovits and Dylan Gould of Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, and Mariya Weeks of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman as class counsel. The proposed classes that the Plaintiff seeks to certify are: Nationwide class "All natural persons residing in the United States who used the Defendant's Website to complete an Appointment Request Form from April 26, 2018, to March 7, 2023." Florida class "All natural persons residing in the State of Florida who used the Defendant's Website to complete an Appointment Request Form from April 26, 2018, to March 7, 2023." The Plaintiffs propose that the following be excluded from the classes: the Defendant's officers and directors (including the officers and directors of its parents, subsidiaries, successors, or assigns); and any Judge who adjudicates this case, including their staff and immediate family. The Plaintiff filed her Complaint on June 10, 2024. The Complaint brought claims on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class Members for violations of the Florida Security of Communications Act; violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"); breach of confidence; invasion of privacy; unjust enrichment; and breach of implied contract. Orlando Health is one of Florida's largest healthcare organizations, operating as a HIPAA-covered entity with legal obligations to protect the health information of individuals seeking medical care. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ee7yjR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL, 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. Clint Watson, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com cwatson@thelyonfirm.com - and - W.B. Markovits, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court St., Ste. 530 Cincinnati, OH 4502 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: bmarkovits@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com ORLANDO HEALTH: W.W. Seeks Leave to File Declaration Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as W.W., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Orlando Health, Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-01068-JSS-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion and sealing the Plaintiff's unredacted declaration in support of class certification for the duration of the litigation or until another time the Court deems appropriate. The Plaintiff wishes to safeguard her protected health information from further disclosure, which is the subject of this litigation. The Complaint was filed under the Plaintiff's initials on June 10, 2024, as opposed to her full legal name, in order the achieve this. Up until now, proceeding under her initials has been a sufficient means of safeguarding her protected health information. However, the Plaintiff's declaration in support of her motion for class certification contains additional identifiers, including her full name, email address, IP Address, and signature. Orlando is a private, not-for-profit network of community and specialty hospitals based in Orlando, Florida. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IMjANS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (954) 647-1866 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com OUTCOMES ONE: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anderson v. Outcomes One, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-01883 (M.D. Fla., Filed Sept. 30, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports -- class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery -- class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute. Outcomes provides pharmacy technology solutions.[CC] PANERA BREAD: Cohan Sues Over Discriminative Property ----------------------------------------------------- Howard Cohan, and others similarly situated v. PANERA BREAD, LLC, d/b/a PANERA BREAD, Case No. 1:25-cv-12383 (S.D. Fla., Oct. 9, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, expenses and costs (including, but not limited to, court costs and expert fees) pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of discriminative property. The Defendant has discriminated, and continues to discriminate against Plaintiff and others who are similarly situated by denying access to and full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations located at the Premises, as prohibited by the ADA, and by failing to remove architectural barriers pursuant to the ADA. The Plaintiff is continuously aware of the violations at Defendant's Premises and is aware that it would be a futile gesture to return to the Premises as long as those violations exist, and Plaintiff is not willing to suffer additional discrimination. The Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, direct and indirect injury as a result of Defendant's discrimination until Defendant is compelled to comply with the requirements of the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has visited the Premises and has been denied full and safe equal access to the facilities, and therefore suffered an injury in fact. The Defendant is authorized to conduct, and is in fact conducting, business within the state of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert M. Kaplan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT M. KAPLAN, P.C. 1901 N. Roselle Road, Ste. 800 Schaumburg, IL 60195 Phone: (847) 895-9151 Fax: (847) 895-7320 Email: rmkap@robertkaplanlaw.com PARTY CITY: $3.9MM Class Settlement Gets Final Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Alfredo R. Perez of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas granted Party City Holdco Inc.'s motion for final approval of a class action settlement agreement. Under the deal, each of the 394 members of the Settling Class shall receive an Allowed Priority Claim as defined in the Debtors' bankruptcy-exit plan of $10,100 per Settling Class Member for a total Allowed Settling Class Claim amount of $3,979,400. The Settlement Agreement is made and entered into on Aug. 22, 2025, by and among: -- Party City Holdco Inc. and its affiliated debtors in the bankruptcy proceeding styled Party City Holdco Inc., et al., Case No. 24-90621 (ARP) in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas; -- Gwendolyn Hanlon, as class representative on behalf of the certified class in the Hanlon Adversary; -- 58 Plaintiffs in the Smith Adversary and Digirolamo Case who opted out of the Class; -- the Individual Defendants; and -- Chubb Insurance Company of New Jersey, which issued ForeFront Portfolio Policy No. J06714006 to Party City Holdings Inc. On Dec. 22, 2024, the Class Representative filed her Complaint on behalf of the Class, initiating Adversary Proceeding No. 24-03273. On Dec. 31, 2024, a number of plaintiffs then represented by Harrison Harrison & Associates ("HHA") filed a Complaint initiating Adversary Proceeding No. 24-03277 (the "Smith Adversary"). On Feb. 7, 2025, a number of plaintiffs then represented by HHA also filed a Complaint initiating Case No. 2:25-cv-01099 (D.N.J.) against the Individual Defendants, with an Amended Complaint filed on June 25, 2025 (the "Digirolamo Case"). On Feb. 26, 2025, the Debtors filed their Complaint initiating Adversary Proceeding No. 25-03062. Certain Debtors provided notice to the Insurer under the Policy on behalf of all Insureds under the Policy in connection with the Hanlon Adversary, the Smith Adversary, and the Digirolamo Case, and the Insurer agreed to provide coverage for certain covered Loss under the Policy, subject to a full reservation of rights, while denying coverage for other loss. On July 8, 2025, the Court granted class certification in the Hanlon Adversary appointing Gwendolyn Hanlon as Class Representative, appointing Raisner Roupinian LLP as Class Counsel, defining the Class, and approving the class notice and opt-out procedures. The Court defined the "Class" as: "Plaintiff [Hanlon] and all similarly situated former employees (i) who worked at, reported to or received assignments from Defendants' [Debtors'] facility at 100 Tice Blvd., Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey, (ii) who were terminated without cause on or about December 20, 2024 or within 30 days of that date, or as the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the mass layoffs and/or plant closings ordered by Defendants on or about December 20, 2024, (iii) who are affected employees within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2101(a)(5) and N.J.S.A. 34:21-1, et seq., and (iv) who have not filed a timely request to opt-out of the class." On July 21, 2025, the Court entered a Stipulation and Agreed Order Regarding WARN Litigation whereby the Parties agreed to participate in good faith in a global mediation of the Hanlon Adversary, the Smith Adversary, the Digirolamo Case, and the Debtors' Adversary with The Honorable Stacey G. C. Jernigan. On June 30, 2025, the Debtors filed the Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation of Party City Holdco Inc. and Its Debtor Affiliates and a related disclosure statement. On June 30, 2025, the Court entered an order: (a) conditionally approving the Disclosure Statement as containing "adequate information" pursuant to section 1125 of the Bankruptcy Code, (b) authorizing the Debtors to solicit votes on the Plan, (c) approving the solicitation materials and documents to be included in the solicitation packages, (d) approving procedures for soliciting, receiving, and tabulating votes on the Plan and for filing objections to the Plan. The Plan provides, among other things, that (a) Holders of Priority Claims (Class 1), Prepetition 2L Notes Claims (Class 3), and General Unsecured Claims (Class 4) are entitled to vote on the Plan; and (b) that holders of administrative and priority claims will receive their pro rata share (over a period of years) of distributable proceeds per the Administrative/Priority Waterfall Treatment under the Plan as follows: First, $5 million distributed pro rata among allowed administrative and priority claims, Second, $9.8 million distributed among the following claims: a. 50% distributed pro rata among allowed administrative and priority claims and b. 50% distributed pro rata among Prepetition 2L Notes Claims; and Third, any remaining distributable proceeds shall be distributed pro rata among Prepetition 2L Notes Claims. The Parties participated in a successful mediation in good faith on Aug. 19, 2025, and entered into a Mediated Binding Settlement Term Sheet. Motion for Final Approval The Court has determined that the relief sought in the Motion is in the best interests of the Debtors' estates, their creditors, the Class Representative, the Class Members, the HHA Plaintiffs, the Individual Defendants, and any other parties in interest. The Settlement is approved on a final basis and in all respects as being (i) fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class Members and other affected employees of the Debtors and (ii) fair, equitable, and in the best interests of the Debtors' estates, for the following reasons: a. If the Settlement is not approved, the WARN Adversary Proceedings will likely be unjustifiably and unnecessarily complicated, protracted, and expensive for the Debtors' estates, regardless of whether the Class Representative, the Class, the HHA Plaintiffs or the Debtors and Individual Defendants prevail; b. The Class Representative supports the Settlement, and the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate to Class Members and are fair, equitable, and in the best interests of the Debtors' estates as compared to all other plausible alternatives; c. The Settlement was reached after a thorough investigation, litigation, and mediation by the Parties; d. The Settlement is well within the range of reasonableness given the uncertainty of the Class Representative's ability to establish liability and to recover against the Debtors and Individual Defendants; e. The Settlement Agreement was negotiated at arm's-length by experienced counsel and in good faith; and f. The Settlement is fair, equitable, and in the best interests of the Parties. Class Counsel is awarded its fees of 1/3 of the Class Distribution Payment, net of (1) the Class Representative Service Payments of $15,000, and (2) Class Counsel's Expenses, including the cost of the Fund Administrator, all of which shall be paid exclusively from the Class Distribution Payment in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. A copy of the Court's Order dated October 17, 2025, is available at http://urlcurt.com/u?l=Dfon7zfrom PacerMonitor.com. About Party City Holdco Party City Holdco Inc. (NYSE: PRTY) is the global leader in the celebrations' industry, with its offerings spanning more than 70 countries around the world. It is also the largest designer, manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of party goods in North America. Party City Holdco had 761 company-owned stores as of September 2022. It is headquartered in Woodcliff Lake, N.J. with additional locations throughout the Americas and Asia. Party City Holdco and its domestic subsidiaries sought protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. S.D. Texas Lead Case No. 23-90005). As of Sept. 30, 2022, Party City Holdco had total assets of $2,869,248,000 against total debt of $3,022,960,000. Judge David R. Jones oversees the cases. The Debtors tapped Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP, as legal counsel; Moelis & Company, LLC as investment banker; AlixPartners, LLP as financial advisor; A&G Realty Partners as real estate advisor; and Kroll as the claims agent. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) provides accounting and valuation advisory services, tax-related services, and internal audit Sarbanes-Oxley Act support services. Davis Polk & Wardwell, LLP and Lazard serve as legal counsel and investment banker, respectively, to the ad hoc group of first lien holders. The U.S. Trustee for Region 6 appointed an official committee to represent unsecured creditors in the Chapter 11 cases. The committee is represented by Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, LLP. PEAK MANAGEMENT: Thompson Suit Removed to D. Maryland ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christina Thompson, for herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PEAK MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. C-03-CV-25-004345 was removed from the Superior Court of the Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore County, to the United States District Court for District of Maryland on Oct. 9, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03347-BAH. The Complaint alleges that Defendant, as a property management company for apartment complexes in Maryland, engaged in collection activities on behalf of the apartment complexes without a collection agency license under the Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendant for: declaratory, injunctive, and ancillary relief; unjust enrichment; and violations of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, and Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Md. Code Ann., Commercial Law.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Borison, Esq. Madison Borison, Esq. BORISON FIRM LLC 1400 S. Charles St. Baltimore, MD 21230 Email: scott@borisonfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Nathan D. Adler, Esq. Steven J. Willner, Esq. NEUBERGER QUINN GIELEN RUBIN & GIBBER, P.A. One South Street, 27th Floor Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone: (410) 332-8550 Facsimile: (410) 332-8551 Email: nda@nqgrg.com sjw@nqgrg.com PENSKE TRUCK: Mercardo Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- The case ARMANDO MERCARDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CORPORATION, PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO. LP, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2502342, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on October 8, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02659 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of California Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law. Penske Truck Leasing Corporation is a provider of transportation solutions, headquartered in Pennsylvania. Penske Truck Leasing Co. LP is a provider of transportation solutions, headquartered in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Evan R. Moses, Esq. Sona P. Patel, Esq. Haik Kolsuzyan, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 Email: evan.moses@ogletree.com sona.patel@ogletree.com haik.kolsuzyan@ogletree.com - and - Noel M. Hernandez, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 10801 W. Charleston Blvd., Ste. 500 Las Vegas, NV 89135 Telephone: (702) 369-6800 Facsimile: (702) 369-6888 Email: noel.hernandez@ogletree.com PG&E CORPORATION: Court Junks Securities Suit --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:18-cv-03509-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Davila entered an order regarding renewed motions to dismiss: The Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. Without the predicate "primary violation of federal securities law," the Plaintiffs cannot establish control liability. Thus, the Court grants the Officer Defendants' motion to dismiss the Section 20(a) claim. III. The Court grants Officer Defendants' motion to dismiss the TAC's Exchange Act claims. Because granting Plaintiffs an additional opportunity to amend the complaint would not be futile, cause undue delay, or unduly prejudice the Officer Defendants, and Plaintiffs have not acted in bad faith, the Court grants leave to amend. Should they choose to file an amended complaint, Plaintiffs must do so within 30 days of this Order and attach a redlined copy comparing the TAC with the Fourth Amended Complaint pursuant to the Section III of the Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases. The Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for violation of Section 11. Without the predicate "primary violation of federal securities law," the Plaintiffs cannot establish control liability. Thus, the Court grants the Securities Act Defendants' motion to dismiss the Section 15 claim. Then Court grants the Securities Act Defendants' motion to dismiss the TAC’s Securities Act claims. Because granting Plaintiffs an additional opportunity to amend the complaint would not be futile, cause undue delay, or unduly prejudice the Securities Act Defendants, and Plaintiffs have not acted in bad faith, the Court grants leave to amend. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded PG&E securities from April 29, 2015, through November 15, 2018. The Plaintiff alleges that six of the Officer Defendants made nineteen false statements concerning the Utility's wildfire safety practices in violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff avers that when the market discovered the alleged falsity of these statements, PG&E's stock price declined, causing investors to suffer financial losses. PG&E serves electric and natural gas retail customers in northern and central California. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UoXVnC at no extra charge.[CC] PIPING ROCK: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Ama Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LYNN AMA, CAROLANNE HOLDER, TIFFINI SMITH and MAGGY GOUSSE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PIPING ROCK HEALTH PRODUCTS INC., NATURE’S TRUTH LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03787-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arun Subramanian entered a Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order: Joinder of additional parties must be accomplished by 30 days after Defendant answers the operative complaint. Amended pleadings may be filed without leave of Court until 30 days after Defendant answers the operative complaint. First request for production of documents, if any, must be served by 30 days after Defendant answers the operative complaint. A final pre-trial conference shall be held on [date to be inserted by the Court]. The timing and other requirements for the Joint Pretrial Order and/or other pre-trial submissions shall be governed by the Court’s Individual Practices. A motion for class certification shall be filed by 10 months after the Court’s decision on the Motion to Dismiss, answering papers by 30 days after the motion, and reply papers by 30 days after the answering papers. Piping provides vitamins and health food products. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2WNIH5 at no extra charge.[CC] PNC FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Unprotected Personal Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Madonna Blunt filed a class action lawsuit against The PNC Financial Services Group Inc. Why: Blunt claims PNC failed to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of its customers. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges The PNC Financial Services Group failed to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information of its customers during a data breach earlier this year. Plaintiff Madonna Blunt claims PNC disclosed earlier this month that sensitive customer information was mistakenly provided to another client without authorization due to an internal disclosure error. Blunt argues, however, that a separate dark web post by a threat actor claimed data was exfiltrated from PNC's IT network, including 740,000 customer records. "Market Exchange's claim indicates that the amount of data exposed as a result of the Data Breach, is substantially larger than the internal disclosure initially confirmed by Defendant," the PNC class action lawsuit states. PNC class action claims bank failed to take precautions to keep customer data secure Blunt claims PNC failed to take precautions to keep individuals' PII secure and failed to use reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for its customers. "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," the PNC class action lawsuit argues. Blunt wants to represent a nationwide class of individuals whose PII was compromised as a result of the data breach. She demands a jury trial and requests declaratory relief and an award of statutory damages and all other forms of monetary relief. In 2024, PNC faced a class action lawsuit alleging it exploited its retirement account investors for its own financial gain. The plaintiff is represented by Ken Grunfeld and Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A. and Mariya Weekes of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC. The PNC data breach class action lawsuit is Blunt v. The PNC Financial Services Group Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-01469, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. [GN] PROCTER & GAMBLE: Parties Seek To Modify Class Cert Schedule ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN SNEED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 4:23-cv-05443-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to modify class certification schedule: Event Date Class certification motion and Dec. 8, 2025 Plaintiff's class certification expert disclosures due: Class certification opposition and Feb. 23, 2026 Defendants' class certification expert disclosures due: Class certification expert discovery April 7, 2026 cut-off: Class certification reply due: June 2, 2026 Procter is an American multinational consumer goods corporation. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tgQuV6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Bahar Sodaify, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Cortlin H. Lannin, Esq. Andrew Soukup, Esq. Sameer Aggarwal, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 415 Mission Street, Suite 5400 San Francisco, CA 94105-2533 Telephone: (415) 591-6000 E-mail: clannin@cov.com asoukup@cov.com saggarwal@cov.com QUANEX BUILDING: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set Nov. 18 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Quanex Building Products Corporation ("Quanex" or the "Company") (NYSE:NX). Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. The class action concerns whether Quanex and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. You have until November 18, 2025 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you purchased or otherwise acquired Quanex securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. On September 4, 2025, after the market closed, Quanex announced its financial results for the third quarter of its 2025 fiscal year. Quanex disclosed, among other things, that ongoing "operational issues related to the legacy Tyman window and door hardware business in Mexico" had "impacted results more than expected[.]" Quanex also disclosed that it was "adjusting for lower expected volumes and pushing oug the timing of when [it] expect[s] to realize procurement savings" from integration of the Tyman business. Then, on September 5, 2025, Quanex held an earnings call to discuss the quarter's financial results. During the call, Chief Executive Officer George Wilson explained that the operational challenges at Tyman "negatively impacted EBITDA in the Hardware Solutions segment by almost $5 million in the third quarter alone." Wilson explained that the issue had been "identified midyear" and described the systems used to "anticipate and plan for tooling repairs" as significantly deficient. On this news, Quanex's stock price fell $2.73 per share, or 13.06%, to close at $18.18 per share on September 5, 2025. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. [GN] QUANTUM CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set November 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Quantum Corporation ("Quantum" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:QMCO). Such investors are advised to contact Danielle Peyton at newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980, (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. The class action concerns whether Quantum and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. You have until November 3, 2025 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class if you purchased or otherwise acquired Quantum securities during the Class Period. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. On June 30, 2025, Quantum disclosed in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") that it would postpone the filing of its Annual Report because it was in the process of reviewing its revenue recognition accounting practices. On this news, Quantum's stock price fell $1.00 per share, or 10.03%, to close at $8.97 per share on July 1, 2025. Then, on August 8, 2025, Quantum filed a report with the SEC, announcing that the Company's financials for the third quarter of 2024 could not be relied upon and would be restated to show a new decrease of approximately $3.9 million in revenue, and that there were deficiencies in the Company's internal control over financial reporting and the Company's disclosure controls and procedures that constituted material weaknesses as of December 31, 2024 and March 31, 2025. On this news, Quantum's stock price fell $0.14 per share, or 1.85%, to close at $7.43 per share on August 11, 2025. Finally, on August 18, 2025, Quantum announced the resignation of its Chief Financial Officer Lewis Moorehead amid an internal accounting review related to its revenue recognition practices. On this news, Quantum's stock price fell $0.61 per share, or 8.2%, to close at $6.83 per share on August 19, 2025. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. [GN] QUICK MED: Class Cert. Discovery in Roth Suit Due Feb. 27, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELIA ROTH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. QUICK MED URGENT CARE, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00745-BYP (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Benita Y. Pearson entered a case management conference order as follows: The case will be referred to the Magistrate Judge for mediation to occur during October 2025, if possible. That referral, however, should not be a barrier to the parties attempting to negotiate a resolution on their own or engage a private mediator. The Parties do not consent to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(c). There are no case-specific rulings as to the type and extent of discovery. Parties are to follow the limits established by the Local and Federal Civil Rules. The Parties have agreed to follow the default standard for discovery of electronically-stored information (Appendix K to N.D. Ohio Local Rules). The case is a putative Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action under 29 U.S.C. sections 201-219 and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (OMFWSA). FLSA Notice discovery shall be completed on or before Oct. 31, 2025. Class certification discovery shall be completed on or before Feb. 27, 2026. The cutoff for filing a motion seeking Court approval of the issuance of Rule 23 notice to be sent to those similarly situated to Plaintiff is Mar. 27, 2026. Responses shall be filed by Apr. 13, 2026 (see LR 7.1(d)) and Replies by April 27, 2026. The cutoff for filing dispositive motions is July 27, 2026. A Status Conference will be held on Nov. 3, 2025, at 12:00 p.m. EST. QUICKmed is a walk-in clinic for acute illness, injury, physicals, flu shots, and more. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Um4BS8 at no extra charge.[CC] REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Class Cert Hearing in Washington Adjourned ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Washington v. Reynolds Consumer Products LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02327 (S.D.N.Y., Filed March 27, 2024), the Hon. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. entered an order that the hearing on Class Certification Motion scheduled for April 13, 2026, is adjourned sine die. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Reynolds provides packaging products.[CC] SALT HARBOR INC: Mosquera Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Jenny Mosquera, on behalf of herself and all others similarly-situated v. SALT HARBOR, INC., and LINDSAY OSTRANDER, individually, Case No. 2:25-cv-05682 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 9, 2025), is brought for damages and equitable relief based upon violations that Defendants committed of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to her by: the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the minimum wage provisions of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and the New York Codes, Rules & Regulations ("NYCRR"). For the duration of Plaintiff's employment period, Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff the wages lawfully due to her under the FLSA and the NYLL, as Defendants paid Plaintiff below the minimum wage rate based on their application of a tip credit to Plaintiff's wages despite never providing her with a tip credit notice. Additionally, Defendants violated the FLSA and NYLL by misappropriating tips, as Defendants unlawfully utilized a tip pool that required Plaintiff to tip out based on sales instead of tips earned, which resulted in workweeks where she would be required to provide more tips than she earned. The Defendants' failure to pay minimum wage and their participation in an illegal tip pool was not limited to Plaintiff, but also extended to all of Defendants' non-managerial tipped employees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a server for Defendants' restaurant. Salted On the Harbor is one of two restaurant locations owned and operated as a single business entity by Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq. STEVENSON MARINO LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1500 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (212) 939-7229 SOM JAI: Porfirio Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge for Pretrial ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Porfirio Rocete et al., v. Som Jai Nuk Inc. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-08038-DEH-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Dale Ho entered an order referring thhr case to the assigned Magistrate Judge for the following purposes: General pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non- dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement) Specific Non-dispositive motion/dispute: class certification Dispositive motion (i.e. motion requiring a report and recommendation). A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TTP3T2 at no extra charge.[CC] STATE FARM: Faces Class Suit Over Auto Claims Payouts in Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------------------ Matthew Sellers, writing for Insurance Business, reports that a federal appeals court has allowed a class action to proceed against State Farm over its method for calculating total loss auto claims in Tennessee. The case focuses on State Farm's use of the "Typical Negotiation Adjustment" (TNA) when determining the actual cash value of totaled vehicles for Tennessee policyholders. State Farm relied on valuations from Audatex, a third-party company, and applied the TNA to reduce payouts based on the assumption that buyers typically negotiate lower prices than those advertised. Lead plaintiff Jessica Clippinger alleged that the TNA did not reflect current market practices and resulted in lower settlements than policyholders were entitled to under their insurance contracts. She argued that, due to online shopping and price transparency, used cars often sell for their advertised prices. The lawsuit claims that State Farm's use of the TNA breached its contracts and violated Tennessee law. State Farm's standard Tennessee auto policy provides for payment of the "actual cash value" of a totaled vehicle. If there is disagreement about the value, the policy allows either party to request an appraisal, with each side selecting an appraiser and a third chosen if needed. Tennessee regulations set out permissible methods for determining actual cash value but allow insurers discretion in the approach used. The certified class covers Tennessee policyholders who, from May 8, 2019, received compensation for a totaled vehicle based on an Audatex appraisal where the actual cash value was decreased by a TNA. State Farm argued that individual circumstances would predominate and that the TNA was a reasonable adjustment. The Sixth Circuit found that whether the TNA resulted in an artificially reduced payout in breach of contract could be addressed for the class as a whole. The October 9, 2025, decision does not resolve whether State Farm's use of the TNA was lawful or a breach of contract. Instead, it affirms class certification and remands the case for further proceedings. The case highlights the importance of claims valuation methods and regulatory compliance. The outcome may influence how insurers in Tennessee and elsewhere approach the calculation and explanation of actual cash value in auto claims. [GN] STRADA SERVICES: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gamez v. Strada Services, LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-01882, (M.D. Fla., Filed Sept. 30, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports -- class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery -- class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Strada is a full service electrical, security, and air conditioning contracting company.[CC] T-MOBILE USA INC: Diaz Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Ryan Diaz, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV019618 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. 9, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-at-01377. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: violation of Labor Code Section 201-203 and Section 246 (Count I); and violation of Labor Code Section 226 (Count II).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Chad Greeson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. Treat Towers, Suite 600 1255 Treat Boulevard Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: (925) 932-2468 Email: cgreeson@littler.com TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR: Must Produce Performance Data, Court Says --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH HOWINGTON, et al., v. TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CO., LTD., et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-05684-VKD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi entered an order as follows: TSMC must produce responsive performance data for all employees located in the United States during the relevant period. For purposes of this production, the "responsive performance data" must include at least the following fields/data, for each such employee: a. Unique employee ID number b. Name c. Race, national origin, and citizenship (to the extent the information is readily accessible) d. Performance evaluation rating(s) or score(s) e. Indication of employment action(s) taken, including (i) promotion, (ii) placement on a performance improvement plan or corrective action plan, (iii) termination, (iv) voluntary resignation, (v) involuntary resignation. At this time, TSMC is not required to produce performance review forms (including narratives), performance improvement/corrective action plans, or employee complaints or objections about performance-related issues. By Oct. 8, 2025, TSMC shall advise plaintiffs of a date certain upon which it will produce the responsive performance data described above. The Defendant is a Taiwanese multinational semiconductor contract manufacturing and design company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ieoAnN at no extra charge.[CC] TANDEM DIABETES: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. (NASDAQ: TNDM) resulting from allegations that Tandem Diabetes Care may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Tandem Diabetes Care securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=19024 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On August 7, 2025, before the market opened, the company issued a press release entitled "Tandem Diabetes Care Issues Voluntary Medical Device Correction for Select t:slim X2 Insulin Pumps." The release stated that Tandem Diabetes had "announced a voluntary medical device correction for select t:slim X2 insulin pumps to address a potential speaker-related issue that can trigger an error resulting in a discontinuation of insulin delivery." On this news, Tandem Diabetes' stock fell 19.9% on August 7, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: case@rosenlegal.com Website: www.rosenlegal.com [GN] TARGET CORP: Parties Seek Class Certification Briefing Schedules ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDEN KELLY, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-01301-RBS (E.D. Pa.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting class certification briefing schedules: Nov. 11, 2025: The Plaintiff's motion for class certification Dec. 19, 2025: The Defendant's Opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification Jan. 26, 2026: The Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for class certification Target is an American retail corporation that operates a chain of discount department stores and hypermarkets. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cUKMhP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick F. Hulla, Esq. Jacqueline R. Barrett, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 700 W. 47th Street, Suite 500 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 471-1301 Facsimile: (816) 471-1303 E-mail: patrick.hulla@ogletree.com jacqueline.barrett@ogletree.com - and - Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Krysten Connon LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (267) 256-9973 E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com kconnon@llrlaw.com - and - Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 335 18th Pl NE Washington, D.C. 20002 Telephone: (202) 830-2016 E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com - and - Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq. WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON 1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 656-3600 Facsimile: (215) 567-2310 E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com TENNESSEE: Court Narrows Claims in Doe Suit ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE 1, et al., v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00777 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr entered a memo denying in part and granting in part the State and DCS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Court will dismiss John Doe 1 as a plaintiff for lack of standing, and it will dismiss Counts Six and Ten for failure to state a claim. Accordingly, the Court will deny Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts One and Three because the allegations above give Defendants' "fair notice" of the Plaintiffs' claims and the grounds upon which they rest. Those grounds, according to Plaintiffs, do not include "allegations of inadequate mental, behavioral, and medical health treatment." The Complaint alleges that Quin's and Reynold's policies deprive Plaintiffs and other Youth "of education for extended or indefinite periods of time without being provided with notice of the reason for the deprivation, an opportunity to be heard, or other procedural safeguards to protect their entitlement to education." The putative class action challenges several policies and practices that allegedly harm the rights of disabled children in Tennessee’s juvenile justice system. Tennessee is a landlocked state in the Southeastern region of the United States. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VwWA0E at no extra charge.[CC] THERAPYMATCH INC: Biberfeld Class Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of CHAIM BIBERFELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THERAPYMATCH, INC. d/b/a HEADWAY, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Rockland (Case No. 034993/2025) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Of New York on Oct. 8, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District Of New York assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-08325. The case is assigned to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer. Therapymatch, Inc., doing business as Headway, develops healthcare software. The Company offers platform that helps therapists accept insurance. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Peter T. Shapiro, Esq. Erin P. Cain, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street, 11th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 232-1300 Email: peter.shapiro@lewisbrisbois.com erin.cain@lewisbrisbois.com TIKTOK INC: Faces Class Suit in Canada Over Psychological Harm -------------------------------------------------------------- Rory MacLean, writing for CTV News, reports that a prospective class action lawsuit filed in Saskatchewan has put TikTok in the crosshairs, alleging the short-form video app targets children and causes psychological harm. In a statement of claim obtained by CTV News, the plaintiffs take aim at the negative effects of TikTok's endless scroll on the minds of young people, and its algorithm's ability to amplify their vulnerabilities, stimulating a satisfying rush of dopamine to prolong the time spent on the platform in an addictive feedback loop. Two law firms are behind the suit against TikTok and its parent company ByteDance Ltd., Vancouver's Rice Harbut Elliott LLP and the Regina-based Willows Wellsch Orr and Brundige LLP. A plaintiff in this case is a Sask. toddler, who was an infant at the time of filing. "Among other harms, the defendants' social media platforms facilitate cyberbullying, contribute to obesity and eating disorders, instigate sleep deprivation to achieve around-the-clock engagement, encourage or counsel high-risk behaviour, encourage children to negatively compare themselves to others and develop a broad discontentment for life, and have been connected to depression, anxiety, self-harm, and ultimately suicidal ideation and attempts," the lawsuit alleges. None of their allegations have been proven in court. The suit, which has yet to be certified as a class action, is one in a wave of recent legal and regulatory actions against the company. NPR reported in October 2024 that 14 U.S. states, led by New York and California, filed suit against the company, claiming it was deliberately designed to keep young people hooked on the service. NPR reporters Bobby Allyn, Sylvia Goodman and Dara Kerr obtained internal reports from the Chinese-owned social media giant revealing the company was aware that children as young as 15-years-old were stripping on TikTok's live feature, and adults were paying for it. According to Allyn, Goodman and Kerr, TikTok even quantified the precise amount of viewing time it takes to form a habit -- 260 videos. Given some of those videos are only a few seconds long, they write you can be "addicted" in under 35 minutes. According to NPR, a presentation shown to top company officials revealed an estimated 95 per cent of smartphone users under 17 used TikTok at least once a month. A new Washington Post investigation corroborates the addictive nature of the app. The Washington Post analyzed the viewing history of 800 TikTok users over a five-month period, finding that even occasional users had doubled the time they spent on the app by the end. Heavy users spent around four hours a day scrolling through their feed, the Post reports. Last month, the federal, Quebec, Alberta and B.C. privacy commissioners released the results of a joint investigation into TikTok, which they launched in 2023. They said in a media release that while the platform isn't meant for kids under 13, they found hundreds of thousands of Canadian children use TikTok each year and the company collects and uses their personal information. The privacy authorities said TikTok has agreed to strengthen its communications on privacy measures and enhance the use of age-assurance methods to ensure underage users don't access the platform. They noted the company also made some improvements to its practices during the investigation, but said they would continue to monitor the situation. Privacy and safety concerns have swirled around TikTok and its Chinese parent company ByteDance because of Chinese national security laws that compel domestic organizations to assist with intelligence gathering. Last year, Canada's federal government ordered the dissolution of TikTok's Canadian business following a national security review of ByteDance. In the U.S., TikTok could soon be in the hands of a cadre of American billionaires hand-picked by the Trump administration, if a Sept. 25 executive order comes to fruition. The executive order is the result of a Biden-era law prohibiting the foreign ownership of TikTok. The law threatened to ban the popular app in the U.S., but its implementation was repeatedly delayed. A date for the certification hearing on the Sask. and B.C.-based class action lawsuit has not yet been set. [GN] TRANS UNION: Theodore Suit Seeks Class Certification of Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILSON THEODORE, LASHANDA THEODORE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00537-EWH-DEM (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying their claims against the Defendant. Trans Union is a global information and insights company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lxBfFx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Thomas Domonoske, Esq. Mark C. Leffler, Esq. Adam W. Short, Esq. John Maravalli, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: tom@clalegal.com lenbennett@clalegal.com adam@clalegal.com john@clalegal.com - and - Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com TRANSUNION LLC: Kaplan Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLEY KAPLAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v.  TRANSUNION LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02438-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. TransUnion is an American consumer credit reporting agency. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mVW9ZP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Soumilas, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. Maria del Pilar Castillo, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com pcastillo@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Erika A. Heath, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 351 California Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (628) 246-1352 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: eheath@consumerlawfirm.com TRANSUNION LLC: Kaplan Seeks to File Docs Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLEY KAPLAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TRANSUNION LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02438-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to file materials under seal in connection with her motion for class certification. The Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal Exhibits 1-6, 8-12, and 15-19 to her contemporaneously filed Memorandum of Law in Support of her Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiff also seeks leave to file under seal those portions of the Memorandum of Law which quote or otherwise reveal the contents of material proposed to be sealed. Exhibits 2, 3, and 17 are each responses by Defendant Trans Union, LLC to Plaintiff’s written discovery requests. The Plaintiff therefore moves to seal the entirety of each of these exhibits. Exhibits 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18, and 19 are each documents produced in discovery in this matter by Defendant, and which Defendant designated as Confidential under the Stipulated Protective Order. The Plaintiff therefore moves to seal the entirety of each of these exhibits. Exhibit 4 contains excerpts of the transcript of the Sept. 9, 2025 testimony of Alexander Zarrilli. Exhibit 5 contains excerpts of the transcript of the March 27, 2025 testimony of Alexander Zarrilli in this matter. Defendant designated certain portions of this testimony as confidential under the Stipulated Protective Order. Plaintiff therefore moves to seal the portions of Exhibit 5 designated as confidential by Defendant. Exhibit 6 contains excerpts of the transcript of the April 17, 2025, Deposition of Tamaya Tucker. Defendant designated certain portions of the transcript confidential under the Stipulated Protective Order. Plaintiff therefore moves to seal the portions of Exhibit 6 designated as confidential by Defendant. Exhibit 16 contains excerpts of the transcript of the August 18, 2025 deposition of Troy Kubes in this matter. Defendant designated certain portions of the transcript confidential under the Stipulated Protective Order. The Plaintiff therefore moves to seal the portions of Exhibit 16 designated as confidential by Defendant. Plaintiff is not familiar with the reasons any of the above materials were marked as "Confidential" and submits this motion to comply with the provisions of the protective order. TransUnion is an American consumer credit reporting agency. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L9FUlc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Soumilas, Esq. Lauren KW Brennan, Esq. Maria del Pilar Castillo, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com pcastillo@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Erika A. Heath, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 351 California Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (628) 246-1352 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: eheath@consumerlawfirm.com TRANSUNION LLC: Trotman Must File Amended Complaint by Oct. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IAN CARLISLE TROTMAN, v. TRANSUNION, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01665-LLA (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Loren Alikhan entered an order that Mr. Trotman shall file his amended complaint on or before Oct. 31, 2025, or, if he is unable to meet that deadline, file a status report by that date detailing his good cause for another extension. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute, the Court says. The Court further entered an order that: -- Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.1(c)(1), Mr. Trotman shall file his updated address with the Clerk of Court. -- Mr. Trotman's motion for preliminary injunction, motion to amend and motion for sanctions, motion for sanctions and default judgment, emergency motion for hearing, motion for discovery, motion for liberal construction of pleadings and reasonable accommodations, motion to certify class, and motion for settlement conference, are denied as moot. -- Mr. Trotman is under no obligation to respond to the Defendant Trans Union's motion to dismiss at this time. The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on April 26, 2025. The action was subsequently removed to this court. TransUnion is a global information and insights company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RtInCh at no extra charge.[CC] UNDER ARMOUR: Rappaport Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- LINDA RAPPAPORT is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Linda Rappaport, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Under Armour, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-7558, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged employment violations. On Dec. 13, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which Judge Hector Gonzalez granted on Sept. 11, 2025. The Court ruled that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On Sept. 25, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration on the Court's Sept. 11 Order. The appellate case is entitled Rappaport v. Under Armour, Inc., Case No. 25-2466, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 7, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant LINDA RAPPAPORT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Defendant-Appellee UNDER ARMOUR, INC. is represented by: Andrew Ramiro Escobar, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700 Seattle, WA 98104 UNION PACIFIC: Black Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAYE BLACK and JEANNINE TOLSON individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Case No. 6:23-cv-01218-EFM-ADM (D. Kan.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting certification of the following class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23: "Any and all persons that currently own any single family home residential real property depicted by the area outlined in dotted blue/black below representing groundwater contamination of 1.2 µg/L." Excluded from the class are the Defendant, any entity that has a controlling interest in the Defendant, their legal representatives, officers, directors, assigns, successors, employees, agents and members of their immediate families; governmental and the judicial officers to whom this case is assigned, their staff, (and the members of their immediate families). The Plaintiffs primarily move for certification of all triable issues pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). In the alternative, the Plaintiffs move pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4) for certification of an issue class for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, or for the certification of alternative or subclasses. Plaintiffs also move for the appointment of undersigned counsel as counsel for the class and for appointment of Faye Black as class representative. Union is a Class I freight-hauling railroad. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KcbD2v at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William R. Griffin, Esq. MARTIN, PRINGLE, OLIVER, WALLACE & BAUER, L.L.P. 645 E. Douglas, Suite 100 Wichita, KS 67202 Telephone: (316) 265-9311 Facsimile: (316) 265-2955 E-mail: wrgriffin@martinpringle.com - and - Ryan D. Ellis, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C. 10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy N Houston, TX 77064 Telephone: (713) 659-5200 Facsimile: (713) 659-2204 E-mail: Ryan.Ellis@lanierlawfirm.com - and - Christopher T. Nidel, Esq. Jonathan Nace, Esq. William W. Cowles, Esq. NIDEL & NACE, P.L.L.C. One Church Street, Suite 802 Rockville, MD 20850 Telephone: (202) 780-5153 E-mail: chris@nidellaw.com jon@nidellaw.com will@nidellaw.com - and - Ari Kresch, Esq. KRESCH LEGAL SERVICES PR, PLLC 1225 Avenida Ponce de Leon, Suite 605 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (800) 529-3476 E-mail: akresch@1800lawfirm.com - and - Steven J. German, Esq. GERMAN RUBENSTEIN, LLP 19 West 44th Street, Suite 1500 New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 704-2020 UNION PACIFIC: Seeks to Exclude Expert Witnesses' Opinions ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAYE BLACK, et. al, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Case No. 6:23-cv-01218-EFM-ADM (D. Kan.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order excluding, and not considering, the opinions and testimony of each of the Plaintiffs' proposed experts (Laton, Kram, Anastasi, Hatton, and Zabel), including opinions and testimony reflected in their expert reports, in their depositions, or otherwise offered in support of the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs Faye Black and Jeannine Tolson bring this action on behalf of themselves and a putative class, alleging that trichloroethylene ("TCE) contamination associated with property now owned by Union Pacific has migrated in groundwater under their homes in Wichita ("the 29th and Grove Site") and resulted in an alleged need to mitigate potential vapor intrusion and diminished property value. Union is a Class I freight-hauling railroad. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u8BwbF at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Erik H. Nelson, Esq. KNIGHT NICASTRO MACKAY, LLC 304 W. 10th Street Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 396-0161 Facsimile: (816) 396-6233 E-mail: nelson@knightnicastro.com - and - Kevin T. Jacobs, Esq. Hannah Roskey, Esq. Kent Mayo, Esq. Martha Thomsen, Esq. BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 910 Louisiana Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 229-1947 Facsimile: (713) 229-7847 E-mail: kevin.jacobs@bakerbotts.com hannah.roskey@bakerbotts.com kent.mayo@bakerbotts.com martha.thomsen@bakerbotts.com - and - Robert R. Simpson, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP City Place I Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (850) 515-8901 Facsimile: (850) 515-8911 E-mail: rsimpson@shb.com UNITED NATURAL: Mediation on Securities Suit Set for Nov. 17 ------------------------------------------------------------ United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI) disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended August 2, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 1, 2025, that the company and its officers, namely, J. Alexander Miller Douglas, John Howard and Chris Testa are named in a putative securities class action that was originally filed on March 29, 2023. On March 7, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and the company filed its response on June 13, 2025. A mediation has been scheduled for November 17, 2025. In case "Dan Sills, et al. v. United Natural Foods, Inc., et al.," pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the plaintiffs allege that defendants violated federal securities laws by making materially false and/or misleading statements and failing to disclose material facts about UNFI's business, operations and prospects. The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on December 21, 2023, and on September 13, 2024, the court issued an opinion granting in part and denying in part the motion. On October 28, 2024, the Company answered the complaint denying the allegations. United Natural Foods, Inc. and its subsidiaries is a distributor of natural, organic, specialty, produce and conventional grocery and non-food products, and provider of support services to retailers, primarily throughout the United States and Canada. UNITED STATES: Appeals TRO and Injunction Order in Casa Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ DONALD J. TRUMP, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying as moot in part the Plaintiffs' motion for a classwide temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in the lawsuit entitled Casa, Inc., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Donald J. Trump, c/o Attorney General of the United States, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00892-CCE-LPA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged civil rights violations. On June 27, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for a classwide temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, which Judge Deborah L. Boardman granted in part and denied as moot in part on Aug. 7, 2025. In sum, the Plaintiffs have established that the balance of the equities and the public interest weigh in favor of a preliminary injunction. The government will not be harmed by an injunction that maintains the status quo of birthright citizenship, and the Plaintiffs will be harmed if the Executive Order is not enjoined pending the outcome of this lawsuit. The appellate case is entitled Casa, Inc., et al. v. Donald J. Trump, c/o Attorney General of the United States, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Case No. 25-2188, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on October 7, 2025. [BN] UNITED STATES: Osborne Appeals Court Order to 2nd Circuit --------------------------------------------------------- BRYAN OSBORNE is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Nah-Fee Hinton, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Darek Puzio, Warden, individually and officially, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-1944, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Prisoner Civil Rights. On Sept. 23, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The appellate case is entitled Hinton v. Puzio, Case No. 25-2464, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 8, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant BRYAN OSBORNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se. Defendants-Appellees DAREK PUZIO, Warden, individually and officially, et al. are represented by: Conor M. Reardon, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE District of Connecticut Connecticut Financial Center 157 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 UNITED STEELWORKERS: Class Cert Discovery Due Feb. 9, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLEAN HARBORS EL DORADO, LLC V. UNITED STEELWORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 13-434, Case No. 1:25-cv-01054-SOH (W.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Susan O. Hickey entered a final scheduling order: The case is set for bench in El Dorado, Arkansas, at the call of the Court during the week of June 8, 2026, beginning at 9:00 a.m. Counsel and unrepresented parties are directed to report at 8:00 a.m. on the date of trial unless otherwise notified. The following schedule will govern this case, and the parties may not amend or deviate from it without leave of Court: Discovery must be completed no later than Feb. 9, 2026. Motions for Class Certification must be filed no later than 90 days after the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) Conference. Motions to amend pleadings or to join other parties must be filed no later than 60 days before the close of discovery, unless good cause is shown for delay. All dispositive motions must be filed no later than 30 days after the close of discovery. Responses must be filed no later than 14 days from the file date of the motion, and replies, if any, no later than seven (7) days from the file date of the response. United is an American labor union representing workers in metallurgical industries as well as in healthcare and other service industries. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N6OONg at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED WHOLESALE: Court Narrows Claims in Escue Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THERISA D. ESCUE, et al., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v. UNITED WHOLESALE MORTGAGE, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-10853-BRM-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Brandy R. McMillion entered an order: -- granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss, -- denying without prejudice the motion to strike class allegations, and -- denying motion for sanctions In sum, the Plaintiffs RICO claims fail for multiple reasons. While the Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges an association-in-fact, the facts fail to sufficiently show that Defendants’ conduct was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs injuries or that it meets the requisite elements of the alleged predicate acts. Further, the economic loss doctrine also bars the RICO causes of action under some state law. Accordingly, Counts I and II should be dismissed for failing to state a claim for which relief can be granted. The Court is not persuaded that Plaintiffs filed this case for an improper purpose or that it did not conduct a reasonable pre-filing entry. The Plaintiffs proceeded to collectively file this action on April 2, 2024, and subsequently amended the complaint on August 30, 2024. UWM is a wholesale mortgage lender. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L86XO1 at no extra charge.[CC] US RENAL CARE: Taclob Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Albert Taclob, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. U.S. RENAL CARE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV26043 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. 9, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-09688. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges nine causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime Under Labor Code Section 510; Meal-Period Liability Under Labor Code Section 226.7; Rest-Break Liability Under Labor Code Section 226.7; Reimbursement of Necessary Expenditures Under Labor Code Section 2802; Violation of Labor Code Section 226(a) (wage statement penalties); Failure to Keep Required Payroll Records Under Labor Sections 1174 and 1174.5; Penalties Pursuant to Labor Code Section 203 (waiting time penalties); and Violation of California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Aaron H. Cole, Esq. Omar M. Aniff, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: aaron.cole@ogletree.com omar.aniff@ogletree.com VAUGHAN MCLEAN: Demetro Class Action Dismissed ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHERINE DEMETRO et al., v. VAUGHAN MCLEAN, LLC et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-02199-APM (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Amit P. Mehta entered an order granting Vaughan Defendants' and Computershare Trust Company's joint motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; Vaughan Defendants' and Lawyers Title Realty Services' joint motion to strike; and the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to late-file their motion to certify class are accordingly denied as moot. Because Vaughan Defendants accurately characterized its units as single-family accommodations and provided the Plaintiffs with proper notice, the Plaintiffs' common-law fraud and civil conspiracy and CPPA claims must also fail, the Court says. The Plaintiffs are current and former residents of two condominium complexes in Washington, D.C., known as The Village at McLean Gardens and The Village Tower at McLean Gardens, collectively known as Vaughan Place. They bring this action on behalf of themselves and those similarity situated to vindicate rights under the District of Columbia's Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act of 1980 (TOPA). Specifically, the Plaintiffs contend that the sale of several hundred condominium units, including ones in which they lived, was inaccurately characterized as the sale of single-family, rather than multi-family, accommodations. That intentional misclassification, they claim, foreclosed them from exercising purchasing rights otherwise granted by TOPA. The Plaintiffs have brought this action against the condominium units’ seller and buyer, Defendants Vaughan McLean, LLC and Vaughan Place, LLC, respectively, and two title companies, Lawyers Title Realty Services, Inc. and Computershare Trust Company, National Association. Vaughan Place is a complex of 33 residential condominium buildings with separate and distinct street addresses in Washington, D.C. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zqmMVn at no extra charge.[CC] VIRGINIA WHITE: RWC Seeks to Stay Class Cert Proceedings -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RESIDENTIAL WARRANTY COMPANY, LLC, v. VIRGINIA WHITE, individually and in her capacity as Power of Attorney for Warren Simmons, Case No. 1:25-cv-00302-KD-B (S.D. Ala.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to stay all class-related proceedings, including any further briefing or consideration of Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff's motion for class certification and for injunctive and declaratory relief. Any class-related proceedings are premature unless and until the Plaintiff files a counterclaim that complies with the pleading standards of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and RWC has had an opportunity to challenge the viability of any such claims via a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, all class-related proceedings should be stayed until (1) RWC files a response under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12 to a counterclaim that complies with the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and (2) the parties have had an opportunity to confer with this Court regarding a schedule for class-related proceedings, including class certification and class discovery, after RWC has filed an answer to White's counterclaim. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8Amjq6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Barze, Jr., Esq. Murphy M. Barze, Esq. BARZE TAYLOR NOLES LOWTHER LLC Lakeshore Park Plaza 2204 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 425 Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 872-1015 E-mail: bbarze@btnllaw.com mbarze@btnllaw.com WASHINGTON TIMES: Must File Responsive Pleading by Nov. 3 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMIREZ v. WASHINGTON TIMES LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02619 (D.D.C., Filed Aug. 11, 2025), the Hon. Judge James E. Boasberg entered an order granting the unopposed motion for extension of time: -- The Defendant shall file its responsive pleading by Nov. 3, 2025. -- The deadline for Plaintiff's motion for class certification prescribed by the local rules will be extended and set on a date to be determined by the scheduling order to be set by the Court. The nature of suit states Statutory Actions. Washington Times is an American conservative daily newspaper.[CC] WATA INC: Filing for Third Bid for Class Certification Due Oct. 29 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB KNIGHT, JACK CRIBBS, and JASON DOHSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WATA, INC. and COLLECTORS UNIVERSE, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01873-GPG-TPO (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Timothy P. O'Hara entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to extend time to file third motion for class certification. The Court modifies the following deadlines in the Scheduling Order: The Plaintiffs' third motion for class Oct. 29, 2025 certification: The Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs Nov. 28, 2025 third motion for class certification: The Plaintiffs' reply to the Defendants' Dec. 15, 2025 opposition Wata operates as a video games company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GgrOI3 at no extra charge.[CC] WEDGE MEDICAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 22, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN KRISCH, EBONIE CHAMPION JESSE GEGUZIS, v. THE WEDGE MEDICAL CENTER INC, WMC ARMAND MAGUNDAYAO MINDA MAGUNDAYAO JASON MCLAUGHLIN, Case No. 2:25-cv-03448-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Wendy Beetlestone entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. All fact discovery shall be completed by April 22, 2026. 2. Any motions for class certification shall be filed on or before Jan. 22, 2026. 3. Any party expecting to offer opinion testimony from lay witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 701 with respect to the issues of liability and damages shall, at the time required for submission of information and/or reports for expert witnesses, serve opposing parties with details and/or documents covering the lay opinions of the Rule 701 witnesses. 4. Any motions for summary judgment shall be filed and served on or before June 8, 2026. If the parties do not plan on filing summary judgment, they shall so report to the Court (Chambers, Room 10614) on or before June 8, 2026. In all summary judgment filings, the parties shall comply with the provisions of Chief Judge Beetlestone's Policies and Procedures regarding the submission of a joint appendix and of statements of undisputed and disputed material facts. Wedge specializes in providing care to individuals struggling with opioid addiction. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vBWRYy at no extra charge.[CC] WESTERN CONFERENCE: Modified Case Schedule in Paieri Suit Entered ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PAIERI, v. WESTERN CONFERENCE OF TEAMSTERS PENSION TRUST et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00922-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lauren King entered an order modifying case schedule as follows: Event Date Bench Trial: To be set later Disclosure of expert testimony 60 days following ruling relating to liability under on class certification FRCP 26(a)(2) due: Disclosure of rebuttal expert 120 days following ruling testimony relating to liability on class certification under FRCP 26(a)(2) due: All motions related to liability 120 days following ruling discovery must be filed by: on class certification Discovery on liability issues 150 days following ruling completed by: on class certification Deadline for filing dispositive 210 days following ruling motions on liability in on class certification accordance with Local Civil Rule 7: Deadline for parties to meet and 21 days following ruling confer and propose a case schedule on class certification for further proceedings for damages phase and possible remaining liability phase and potential trial, if necessary: Western is the largest area-wide multiemployer pension plan in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0F4m4l at no extra charge.[CC] WILDE BRANDS: Fischer Sues Over Deceptively Sold Products --------------------------------------------------------- Anna Fischer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WILDE BRANDS INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-09352 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 30, 2025), is brought as a result of the Defendants' violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act regarding their popular line of protein chips (the "Products") which are deceptively sold. To increase profits at the expense of consumers and fair competition, Defendant deceptively sells the Products in oversized packaging that does not reasonably inform consumers that they are mostly buying air. In short, Defendant dupes consumers into paying extra for empty space. In making the purchase, Plaintiff relied upon the opaque packaging, including the size of the package and product label, and that was designed to encourage consumers like Plaintiff to purchase the Products. Plaintiff understood the size of the package and product label to indicate that the amount of product contained therein was commensurate with the size of the package, and would not have purchased the Products, or would not have paid a price premium for the Products, had Plaintiff known that the size of the package and product label were false and misleading. The Plaintiff intends to purchase the Products in the future but cannot reasonably do so without an injunctive relief order from the Court ensuring Defendant's packaging, labeling, and filling of the Products is accurate and lawful, at which point Plaintiff will reasonably be able to rely upon Defendant's representations about the Products, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Defendant's "Sea Salt & Vinegar" and "Himalayan Pink Salt" protein chips. Wilde Brands Inc. manufactures and sells a popular line of protein hips.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Cole, Esq. W. Blair Castle, Esq. KJC LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (310) 861-7797 Email: kevin@kjclawgroup.com blair@kjclawgroup.com WPP PLC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due December 8 ----------------------------------------------------------- WHY: New York, N.Y., October 11, 2025, Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of American Depositary Shares ("ADS" or "ADSs") of WPP plc (NYSE:WPP) between February 27, 2025 and July 8, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 8, 2025. SO WHAT: If you purchased WPP plc ADSs during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the WPP plc class action, go tohttps://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=46121or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 8, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the complaint, defendants provided overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of WPP's media arm; notably, that it was not truly equipped to handle the ongoing macroeconomic challenges while competing effectively and had instead begun to lose significant market share to its competitors. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the WPP plc class action, go tohttps://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=46121call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] XCEL ENERGY: Status Report Entered in Arandell Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARANDELL CORPORATION v. XCEL ENERGY INC., Case No. 3:07-cv-00076 (W.D. Wisc., Filed Feb. 9, 2007), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order entered an order re status report. The parties have filed a letter that they call a "status report," in which they say that they have "disparate views" about "developments regarding expert witnesses, including the untimely death of Plaintiffs' Expert, Dr. Michael Harris," the Court says. The parties ask to be allowed until October 17 to provide an update to the court on whether they need a status conference to resolve the dispute. The court has no objection to the parties providing an update on October 17. But the only deadline set in this case is the briefing schedule on whether common questions predominate for the purpose of class certification, and the first brief is not due until November 14. The parties do not ask for an extension of that deadline or explain whether or how their disputes about the experts affect their ability to comply with that deadline. If the parties are unable to resolve the disputes mentioned in their letter, they should put those disputes in writing and present them to the court, identifying specifically what they want the court to do. The court will schedule a conference then if it appears that one is necessary. The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract. Xcel Energy is a major U.S. utility company that provides electricity and natural gas services across parts of eight states. Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, it generates and distributes power from various sources including wind, solar, nuclear, and natural gas. The company serves residential, commercial, and industrial customers in Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin.[CC] XTO ENERGY: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Brusamonti --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER BRUSAMONTI, et al., v. XTO ENERGY INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00652-CB (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Cathy Bissoon entered an order granting the Defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment. The Court said that none of the class requirements can be assessed under the proposed class definition. Numerosity is uncertain, because of the lack of temporal limits. Commonality and typicality are lacking because the definition does not exclude lessors who suffered no improper deductions, let alone answer whether membership is restricted to those who allegedly were harmed by the computer update, the Court adds. The Defendant's renewed Motion for summary judgment will be granted. Since the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit remanded this case for further proceedings, there have been two meaningful developments. First, Defendant has paid Plaintiffs the $2.57 they claimed was owing. Second, it has submitted a sworn declaration from project advisor Holly Green stating, based on personal knowledge and her review of the Defendant's business and accounting records, it correctly adjusted its revenue accounting records and already had fully reimbursed costs improperly deducted. XTO is an American energy company. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yU2QWW at no extra charge.[CC] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***