251022.mbx

251022.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, October 22, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 211 Headlines AA FOREST: Court Partly OK's Yuan Conditional Cert Bid AARP INC: Agrees to Settle Video Privacy Class Suit for $12.5-Mil. ABENGOA SA: Second Circuit Revives Putative Class Action AIRWAVE SOLUTIONS: CAT Orders Opt-Out CPO for Damages Claim AMAZON.COM INC: Shoppers Sue Over Discounts on July Prime Day Sale ANDREW LOPINOT: Court Narrows Claims in TMB Suit ANTHEM COMPANIES: Lazaar Class Action Closed APPLE INC: Faces Another Class Action Suit Over Pirated Books APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Beats Headphones ARGOS USA: Pro Slab Seeks Approval of Certified Class Notice Plan ASPIRUS INC: Settles Data Sharing Class Suit With Cash Payments ASTRIA THERAPEUTICS: M&A Probes Sale to BioCryst Pharmaceuticals ATYR PHARMA: Faces Munguia Suit Over Drop of Common Stock Price BATCHSERVICE LLC: Violates Right of Publicity, Miller Suit Says BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Class Action in N.D. Ill. BEACON HILL: Faces Lee Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages BENAG LLC: Property Not ADA-Compliant, Maurer Suit Says BERRY CORP: M&A Investigates Sale to California Resources BURLINGTON COAT: Filing for Class Certification Due May 29, 2026 CALIFORNIA: Judge Certifies Suit Over Opposing Gender Secrecy Rules CASH APP: $12.5MM Settlement Final Court OK Hearing Set Dec. 2 CEPTON INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Law Violations CHEMOURS COMPANY: Loses Bid for Partial Summary Judgment CHICAGO BREAD: Cohan Sues Over Discriminative Property CHURCH STREET: Class Cert. Bids in Slaven Due Jan. 30, 2026 CIRCLE K: Abboud Bid for Class Certification Tossed CITIZEN WATCH: Faces Class Action Suit Over Advertised Fake Sales CLEVELAND-CLIFFS STEEL: Underpays Operating Technicians, Kuhns Says CMS ENERGY: Status Report Entered in NewPage Class Action COACH FOR SENIORS: Underpays Company Employees, Velasquez Says COFFEE BOYS: Vega Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Coffee Shop Workers CREDIT BUREAU: Hamilton Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action CREDIT CUBE: Armstrong Sues Over Deceptive Loan Practices CSX TRANSPORTATION: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Webb CUSTOM HOMES: Faces Ortiz Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation DASMEN RESIDENTIAL: Faces Pagan Suit Over Unpaid Overtime DECKERS OUTDOOR: Czerwien Suit Removed to C.D. California DEERE & COMPANY: Workman Class Action Dismissed DETROIT SALT: Seever Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Scoop Operators DICK'S SPORTING: Court Transfers Price Fixing Lawsuit to Colorado DISCORD INC: Faces Data Breach Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info DISCORD INC: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Jeska Says DR PEPPER: Faces Class Suit Over Canada Dry Product Origin DRAKE FIELD: Faces Rivers Suit Over FLSA Violation DREW BOSTOCK: Summary Judgment OK'd on Bond Denial Class DREW BOSTOCK: Vazquez Wins Partial Summary Judgment DUKE ENERGY: Jones Seeks to Certify Property Owner Class DUKE UNIVERSITY: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Beroset Claims ELECTROSTIM MEDICAL: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. AMA ELSEVIER INC: Court Dismisses "Lyall" Securities Fraud Suit ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ENGLANDER TRANSPORTATION: Light Seeks Conditional Collective Cert EURO FOODS INC: Curiel Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania FIRST ADVANTAGE: McCutchen Sues Over Illegal Background Screening FLAGSTAR BANK: Class Cert Bid in Gardner Suit Due June 23, 2026 GEICO INDEMNITY: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert SurReply GEMINI EXPRESS: Fact Discovery in Blandon Suit Due Jan. 28, 2026 GKN DRIVELINE: Mebane Bid for Atty Fees & Costs Denied GREATER CINCINNATI: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $850,000 GREEN MAGIC: Faces Rosales Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. HANOVER, VA: Court Decertifies Class in Hatcher HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Marketing Emails HONEYWELL INT'L: Class Cert Hearing Set for July 17, 2026 HOSPITALITY CENTER: Mera Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation HOST INTERNATIONAL: Wins Summary Judgment v. Frankenstein HP HOOD LLC: Purnell Suit Removed to E.D. California HUMBOLDT PARK: Moore Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages INTEGRIS HEALTH: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Suit for $30MM IQ ELECTRICAL: Underpays Company Employees, Saula Says JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Denies Palladino Reconsideration Motion KENT MARTIN: Burch Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response KERBER ECK: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Suit for $1.4MM KNOX COUNTY, IL: Second Amended Bid for Class Certification Granted LINKEDIN CORP: Court Tosses J.P. Suit with Leave to Amend LINKEDIN CORP: Court Tosses L.B. Suit with Leave to Amend LINKEDIN CORP: V.R. Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend MANN & COMPANY: Faces Shabazz Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit MARTINEZ REFINING: Piscitelli Loses Bid for Class Certification MCDONALD'S USA: Federal District Court Dismisses PUMP Act Claims MCLAREN HEALTH: Gailey Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info MDL 3035: CarMichael Files Second Bid for Class Certification MDL 3035: Ewing Files Second Bid for Class Certification MDL 3035: Jackson Files Second Bid for Class Certification MDL 3035: Russ Files Second Bid for Class Certification MDL 3035: Wade Files Second Bid for Class Certification MEATS AND GREENS: Silva Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensation MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Underpays Automotive Technicians, Phillips Says META PLATFORMS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Stock Investment Scams MICROSOFT CORP: ChatGPT Users Sue Over OpenAI Inflated Prices MOONLAKE IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 15 MOTOROLA INC: CAT Certifies GBP650-MM Suit Over Airwave Services NESTLE HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over "Nutritional Drink" Claims NEUROMUSCULOSKELETAL CENTER: Offers Data Monitoring as Settlement NEW HAMPSHIRE: Loitering Law "Unconstitutional," Clark Says ON HOLDING: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Athletic Shoes ORTHOPEDICS RHODE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $2.9MM OTT CONE: Settles 2024 Data Breach Class Suit for $600,000 PRESTIGE FUNDS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Ponzi Scheme QANTAS AIRLINES: May Face Suit Over Leaked Customers' Personal Info RETINA VITREOUS: Fails to Protect Private Info, McCloud Says ROKU INC: Faces Class Suit Over Collecting Children's Personal Data RUSH STREET: Director-Removal Provision "Invalid," Jennings Claims SAFELITE GROUP: Faces Curtis Suit Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharges SOLARAY LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carpenter Alleges ST. THERESE SENIOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clark Alleges STATE FARM: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Underpaid Total Loss Claims STATE FARM: Walsh Class Suit Removed to D. Minn. TD BANK: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Improper Overdraft Fees TESLA INC: Faces Class Suit Over "Full Self-Driving" False Claims THERAPEUTIC HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $790,000 TRUECAR INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Fair Holdings UNISYS CORP: $625K Deal in "Caccavale" Has Final Court Approval UNITED FOOD: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Lewis Suit Says UNITED STATES: League of Women Sues Over Unlawful Data Systems UNITED STATES: Ovando Sues Over Mass Immigration Arrests in Colo. WELLDYNE RX: IBEW 150 Fund Seeks to Recover Withheld Rebates WPP PLC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Revenue Claims ********* AA FOREST: Court Partly OK's Yuan Conditional Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as QUNBIN YUAN, JIAN KANG LIU, a/k/a James Liu, CHANGLI KAO, a/k/a Charlie Gao, and MING XIANG, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. AA FOREST INC. d/b/a Lasership, YOU LIANG GUO a/k/a Youliang Guo, and PENG YANG GUO a/k/a Pengyang Guo a/k/a Kevin Guo,Case No. 1:20-cv-05484-AMD-MMH (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Marcia Henry entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification, as follows: The Plaintiffs have met their minimal burden of showing that the potential opt-in class members are similarly situated for the purposes of conditional certification. The potential class includes all nonexempt and nonmanagerial current and former employees of AA Forest Inc. d/b/a Lasership, who performed work as nonexempt, non-managerial deliverymen at 57-47 47th Street, Queens, New York 11378 between November 15, 2017 and the present. The applicable statute of limitations shall be the three years warranted for willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA statute of limitations for opt-in plaintiffs shall be tolled from September 16, 2024, the date Plaintiffs’ second motion for conditional certification was filed, until the date of this Order. The Court conditionally approves dissemination of the Notices, subject to the amendments set forth in this Order, to provide opt-in plaintiffs with accurate and timely notice concerning the pendency of the collective action. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have satisfied the minimal burden at the first step of this FLSA collective action and have made a “modest factual showing” to demonstrate that they are similarly situated with the potential collective opt-in plaintiffs. Yuan worked as a Lasership deliveryman delivering Amazon Prime goods in Brooklyn, New York from July 8, 2020 to July 13, 2020. AA Forest is a domestic business corporation located in Great Neck, New York that operates a warehouse at 57-47 47th Street, Queens, New York. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PofXlp at no extra charge.[CC] AARP INC: Agrees to Settle Video Privacy Class Suit for $12.5-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that AARP has agreed to a $12.5 million class action settlement that offers pro-rated cash payments to individuals who used video features on its site between certain dates and had an active Facebook account during the same time period. The AARP class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on September 12, 2025, and covers anyone whose private information may have been accessed after requesting or obtaining video content on the AARP website in the United States between September 27, 2020 and September 12, 2025, and at the same time had a Facebook account and was an AARP member or a registered user of AARP.org. The court-approved website for the AARP class action settlement can be found at https://www.AARPSettlement.com/. AARP settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form can receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment of approximately $47 to $237. The final amount of each eligible class member's cash payout will depend on the total number of valid claims that are filed and what remains in the settlement fund after deducting settlement administration expenses, attorney costs and fees, and any service awards from the settlement fund. Eligible class members will have the option to choose their payout via cash or electronic payment, the settlement website shares. As part of the class action settlement, AARP has additionally agreed to limit the use of Meta Pixel, a back-end programming tool that tracks analytical information of the site's users, on the video features of its site. To submit a settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. Consumers who believe they are a class member but did not receive a notice should contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and receive their login ID. According to the settlement website, class members looking to submit a claim form will need their Facebook profile link. Instructions on how to find your Facebook profile link can be found in the answer to question 14 on the settlement website's FAQ page. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the address listed near the top of the form. AARP settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by December 31, 2025. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the AARP settlement at a hearing on February 10, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The class action lawsuit against AARP claimed that the nonprofit, which represents American consumers 50 years old and older, violated the federal Video Privacy Protection Act by collecting and transmitting the information of users who viewed videos on its website to Meta starting in late 2020. Per the suit, this data was correlated to users' Facebook IDs, which contained personally identifiable information such as a user's name, gender, date of birth, residence, employment, family members, interests, photos, and more. [GN] ABENGOA SA: Second Circuit Revives Putative Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Lexology reports that on October 6, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reinstated a putative class action asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a Spanish construction company, its former CEO, and the underwriters of its initial public offering of American Depository Shares ("ADSs"). Sherman v. Abengoa, S.A., ––F.4th––, 2025 WL 2825369 (2d Cir. 2025). Plaintiffs alleged that the company engaged in accounting fraud to manipulate its financial records and conceal a liquidity crisis, which allegedly contributed to the company's bankruptcy. The district court dismissed the action, but the Second Circuit reversed and reinstated the claims. The Court held that the Securities Act claims were timely, and that plaintiffs adequately alleged certain misrepresentations as to the company with respect to both the Securities Act and Exchange Act claims, based on allegations drawn from confidential witnesses and Spanish criminal proceedings. Because the district court did not consider those allegations in evaluating plaintiffs' allegations of scienter, the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal of the Exchange Act claims against the company and remanded for further proceedings. Claims under the Securities Act are subject to a one-year statute of limitations which begins to run upon the discovery of the untrue statement or omission, or after such discovery should have been made by the exercise of reasonable diligence. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 77m. The Court first explained that plaintiffs' Securities Act claims were timely in light of their allegations regarding the revelation of the misstatements being sued upon. Although the company had revealed in November 2014 that it needed to reclassify certain of its debt, the Court explained that this disclosure did not relate directly to plaintiffs' allegations of fraudulent accounting practices. Instead, the Court explained that investors' concerns about the company's liquidity were triggered by the company's announcement in August 2015 that it would be pursuing a massive capital increase and asset divesture. The Court determined that, because plaintiffs filed their Securities Act claims within one year of that disclosure, those claims were timely. The Court also rejected defendants' argument that plaintiffs' claims in their amended complaint did not "relate back" to the original complaint (i.e., to be considered to have been brought as of the date plaintiffs commenced the action). The Court held the allegations in the amended complaint did relate back because they arose out of the same conduct alleged in the initial complaint. In addition, the Court explained that plaintiffs adequately alleged misrepresentations with respect to the Securities Act claims, although it agreed with the district court that certain statements plaintiffs challenged in the company's offering documents were inactionable. Specifically, the Court held that the company's statements that it "enforce[d] strict financial discipline" through a "robust project management and control system" were puffery and thus reasonable investors could not rely on them. The Court found, however, that the company's statements about how it measured the completion of its projects for purposes of revenue calculation were adequately alleged to be false. The Court disagreed with the district court's rejection of the allegations made by confidential witnesses, concluding that those witnesses were described in the amended complaint with sufficient particularity to support the probability that a person in the position occupied would possess the information alleged. As a result, the Court concluded that plaintiffs had raised sufficiently detailed allegations based on statements from confidential witnesses to plausibly allege accounting fraud, including inflating profit margins and manipulating how costs were recorded. The Court further determined that the district court erred in not crediting allegations drawn from criminal proceedings against the company pending in Spanish courts. The Court explained that there is no blanket rule that "foreclose[s]" plaintiffs "from relying on facts and allegations incorporated in another proceeding." While observing that this is a case-specific inquiry and that conclusory allegations from other proceedings are insufficient, the Court held that "the allegations relied on by [p]laintiffs in the [complaint] here were detailed, independently corroborated, and the product of an independent investigation." The Court then rejected the district court's conclusion that the offering materials contained meaningful cautionary language about how the company measured the completion of various projects. While the offering documents noted that the company's revenue calculation method relied on the "use of estimates," the Court concluded "it strains credulity to suggest that such a tepid warning about the use of estimates was enough to put investors on notice" that company "was deliberately manipulating the percentage of completion to inflate its revenues." Finally, the Court reversed the district court's finding that the complaint failed to adequately allege the materiality of the alleged misrepresentations. The Second Circuit held that plaintiffs' allegations sufficiently alleged the impact of the alleged misconduct on the company as a whole, and that the materiality of an alleged misrepresentation "will rarely be dispositive" unless the allegations are "so obviously unimportant to a reasonable investor that reasonable minds could not differ." With respect to the Exchange Act claims, the Court observed that the district court's conclusion that scienter was not adequately alleged as to the company was largely based on disregarding the allegations drawn from confidential witnesses and Spanish criminal proceedings. The Court therefore remanded with instructions for the district court to fully consider those allegations. However, the Court held that the district court did not err in denying plaintiffs leave to amend their Exchange Act claims with respect to the company's former CEO because those amendments would be futile in alleging his scienter. The Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the timing of the former CEO's retirement -- around the same time that the company needed to borrow from its majority shareholder and six months before the company filed for creditor protection -- would be sufficient to allege scienter. Rather, the Court observed that a resignation can only support the required "strong inference" of scienter if supported by compelling circumstantial allegations "corroborating that the employee who resigned held a culpable state of mind," which were absent here. [GN] AIRWAVE SOLUTIONS: CAT Orders Opt-Out CPO for Damages Claim ----------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Whalley, writing for GCR, reports that the Competition Appeal Tribunal has granted a Collective Proceedings Order (CPO) on an opt-out basis in Spottiswoode v Airwave Solutions Limited & Ors [2025] CAT 60, certifying claims valued at GBP600-650 million on behalf of all purchasers of Airwave Services. This is the first such claim that has attracted public rather than commercial funding. It is brought on behalf of purchasers of emergency communications services, including not only the "Blue Lights" providers but also smaller rescue organisations and charities and commercial purchasers of such services. The case concerns allegations that Motorola abused its dominant position by charging excessive and unfair prices for access to the emergency radio communication network used by police, fire, ambulance and other emergency services across Great Britain from January 2020 to July 2023. The Tribunal approved the proposed class definition covering all direct and indirect purchasers of Airwave Services, rejecting Motorola's arguments for a narrower class limited to direct purchasers only. The Tribunal found that the class definition was "clear and objective" and would ensure access to justice for all affected parties, including smaller public sector bodies and charities. On the opt-in/opt-out question, the Tribunal concluded that opt-out proceedings were appropriate, finding "a significant impediment to access to justice to many class members if the proposed claims were to proceed on an opt-in basis." The Tribunal noted that many proposed class members are public or charitable sector entities whose claims would not be of sufficient scale to justify the time and resources required to opt-in the collective claim. The Tribunal also dismissed Motorola's application to strike out claims for the first nine months of the claim period. Clare Spottiswoode CBE was approved to act as the Class Representative, supported by an experienced advisory panel including Sir Gerald Barling (former President of the Tribunal) and senior figures from emergency services and government. The Tribunal also approved the funding arrangements for the litigation out of central funds, with appropriate safeguards to ensure independence and proper representation of all class members' interests. Rhodri Thompson KC and Professor Suzanne Rab were instructed by Ashurst LLP and White & Case LLP, in conjunction with Anneli Howard KC of Monckton Chambers. The Tribunal's Judgment can be found at https://www.catribunal.org.uk/judgments/16987724-clare-mary-joan-spottiswoode-cbe-v-airwave-solutions-limited-motorola-0 [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Shoppers Sue Over Discounts on July Prime Day Sale ------------------------------------------------------------------ Caroline Hicks of WBTV reports that Amazon is facing a lawsuit claiming misleading discounts during the July Prime Day sale. Shoppers are accusing Amazon of listing sale prices that were no better or even higher than regular prices. The complaint was filed in September, brought by customers in California and Maryland. Some of the examples cited in the lawsuit include: -- A pair of headphones promoted as 44% off a list price of $179.95. The customers allege the product had never been sold above $160. -- An 8-inch Android kids' tablet marketed as 40% off a list price of $119.99, costing about $72. According to the lawsuit, Amazon sold the device between $50 and $85 in the 90 days before Prime Day. Here's what the experts say you should do when shopping to give yourself the best chance at getting the best price: -- Compare prices of the same product across several sites. -- Track price history using tools like CamelCamelCamel, Keepa or Honey. -- Don't rush. Sales countdowns are designed to apply the pressure, but take a pause and do some research before buying. If think you overpaid, you should: -- Contact the seller to ask for a price adjustment or refund if you can show the price was lower before or after the announced sale. -- Report it to the FTC or North Carolina Department of Justice. -- You can also leave a review to warn other shoppers. Amazon has not commented on the lawsuit. [GN] ANDREW LOPINOT: Court Narrows Claims in TMB Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOP METAL BUYERS INC., et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ANDREW LOPINOT, ST. CLAIR COUNTY, JOE AIELLO, SANGAMON COUNTY, KELLY VINCENT, HENRY COUNTY, ANGELA G. GRAVES, MCDONOUGH COUNTY, CHRIS SLUSSER, MADISON COUNTY, and DAVID HARRIS, Case No. 3:24-cv-01073-NJR (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Rosenstengel entered an order granting motion to dismiss: -- The Defendant Harris is dismissed without prejudice. -- The motions to dismiss filed by the Defendants are granted in part and denied in part. -- The Plaintiffs' claim for conversion under Illinois state law is dismissed without prejudice. The named Plaintiffs here each allegedly forfeited a surplus value that was between two and more than 10 times the taxes they owed. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have set forth an Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines claim. Because the Court must accept the Plaintiffs' allegations as true at the motion to dismiss stage, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have adequately satisfied Monell's requirements for bringing section 1983 claims. Here, the face of the Amended Complaint does not plead any facts that implicate the statute of limitations; therefore, resolution of the defense at this stage is inappropriate. Each of the named Plaintiffs are property owners whose properties were taken by their respective County to either be transferred to private buyers or kept by the County. Even though the amount of taxes they owed was less than their property value, they were not compensated for the surplus value. The proposed class is defined as: "All persons, natural and legal, and their successors and heirs, who meet the following criteria: (1) they owned or were the beneficial owners of real property in the state of Illinois; (2) their property was subject to a tax deed taking by a county; (3) the fair market value of the property at the time of the tax deed foreclosure exceeded the back taxes and interest owed at the time the tax deed was issued." Alternatively, due to pending related class litigation in other Illinois counties, Plaintiffs propose the following Subclass: "All persons, natural and legal, and their successors and heirs, who meet the following criteria: (1) they owned or were the beneficial owners of real property in the state of Illinois other than in Cook and/or DuPage, Kane, Lake, Will, Winnebago, Boone, Carroll, and Peoria counties; (2) their property was subject to a tax deed taking by a county; (3) the fair market value of the property at the time of the tax deed foreclosure exceeded the back taxes and interest owed at the time the tax deed was issued." The Plaintiffs also propose a Defendant Class defined as: "All Illinois county governments and their elected treasurers who (1) make the policy choice to collect at least some delinquent property taxes through tax sales and (2) executed or aided in the execution of tax-deed foreclosures on properties where the fair market value of the property exceeded the amount of back taxes and interest owed on the property at the time of the foreclosure." A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oFb8sz at no extra charge.[CC] ANTHEM COMPANIES: Lazaar Class Action Closed -------------------------------------------- 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 1:22-cv-03075-JGLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge 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; accordingly, the case is closed. Anthem manufactures telecommunications equipment. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ULKDJW at no extra charge.[CC] APPLE INC: Faces Another Class Action Suit Over Pirated Books ------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Bouma, writing for Cord Cutters News, reports that in a fresh legal blow, Apple faces a proposed class action lawsuit accusing the tech giant of using pirated books to train its artificial intelligence models, marking the second such case in just over a month. The complaint, filed by two neuroscience professors from SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, New York, alleges that Apple unlawfully tapped copyrighted materials to bolster its AI technology. Susana Martinez-Conde and Stephen Macknik claim their registered works were among thousands of books accessed without permission through "shadow libraries" and web-crawling software, tools known for harvesting pirated content. The lawsuit, first reported by Bloomberg Law, contends that Apple's unauthorized use of these materials to train its AI models constitutes a violation of copyright law. This latest legal challenge follows closely on the heels of a similar lawsuit lodged against Apple last month. In that case, two authors accused the company of infringing on their copyrights by incorporating their published works into the training data for Apple Intelligence models without consent. The recurrence of such claims highlights growing scrutiny over how tech companies source data for their rapidly advancing AI systems. Apple's practices, according to the plaintiffs, mirror those of other industry players now entangled in legal battles over intellectual property. The broader tech industry is no stranger to these controversies. OpenAI, a prominent AI developer, is currently defending itself against a lawsuit filed by The New York Times, which alleges unauthorized use of copyrighted material to train its models. The legal landscape is evolving as courts grapple with the novel challenges posed by AI technologies. A notable precedent emerged earlier this year when Anthropic, another AI firm, settled a class action lawsuit for $1.5 billion. The settlement compensated 500,000 authors whose works were used without permission, signaling that courts may hold companies accountable for such practices. For Apple, these lawsuits pose significant risks to its reputation and financial standing. The company has heavily promoted its AI initiatives, branding them as Apple Intelligence, but the mounting allegations of copyright infringement could undermine public trust and investor confidence. The neuroscientists' complaint emphasizes the scale of the alleged violation, pointing to vast repositories of pirated books accessed through illicit online platforms. As the case progresses, it may shed light on the opaque processes behind AI training and force tech giants to rethink their data-sourcing strategies. With the legal battles heating up, the industry faces increasing pressure to balance innovation with respect for intellectual property rights. [GN] APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Beats Headphones ------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges Apple's premium-priced Beats headphones suffer from a defect that inhibits a user's ability to reliably communicate via the device's built-in microphone. The 71-page Apple lawsuit contends that the Beats headphones, including the Studio Pro, Solo Pro, and Studio3 models, are not well-made and function at a much lower quality than the tech giant advertises. Specifically, the filing says, many consumers have reported that their voices sound muffled and distorted, as though they are "in a tunnel under water," when talking through the headphones' internal microphone. "[Consumers] purchased headphones based on Apple's false promises and paid a price that does not reflect the defective product's actual value," the case summarizes. The plaintiff, a California resident, bought a pair of Beats headphones in November 2024 for $159.99, with the intention to use them primarily for work, class and video meetings. According to the suit, Apple promoted the device's high-quality call performance as a key feature of several Beats products. However, when the plaintiff began using her headphones, she quickly learned that those on the other end of her calls repeatedly could not hear her properly, the complaint says. After bringing the issue to the attention of the Apple Genius bar several times, the plaintiff was issued two separate replacements for her original pair in early 2025, all of which had the same microphone defect, the case continues. During a customer support chat conversation in March 2025, the case relays, an Apple representative told the plaintiff that "headphones of this style are not designed to talk through calls or meetings. Because these do not have microphones such as a headset that incorporate [sic] a plastic bar that is direct to the microphone." This response contravenes how the Beats headphones were marketed by Apple across several ad campaigns and promotions, the lawsuit charges. The suit notes that Apple frequently mentions the "six total microphones enabling high-quality call performance" when promoting the product. The plaintiff believes that Apple's response to the apparent Beats headphones problems has been largely insufficient, given the promotion of Beats as a quality, premium brand in the headphone market since its launch in 2006 and acquisition by Apple in 2014. The status of Beats headphones has been further reinforced since the pandemic with the rise of remote and hybrid work, where headphones like Beats have launched campaigns that highlight the "clear, high-performing microphones and consistent audio quality for communication purposes," the suit claims. Apple has yet to publicly acknowledge the alleged Beats microphone issue or make any effort to resolve it, and still sells the afflicted Beats on its site, the complaint shares. When consumers contact Apple support to report microphone malfunctions, the lawsuit claims, they are told basic troubleshooting steps (like resetting the headphones) or that Apple is "aware of the issue" and "working on a fix," with no timeline provided. Several consumers, such as the plaintiff, have also been offered replacement headphone sets, but many still possess the same issues, the suit says. The Apple class action lawsuit looks to cover all United States residents who purchased Apple Beats Studio Pro series headphones from July 9, 2021, to the present. [GN] ARGOS USA: Pro Slab Seeks Approval of Certified Class Notice Plan ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRO SLAB, INC., BREMER CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC., and FORREST CONCRETE, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ARGOS USA LLC, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-03185-BHH (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order approving the certified litigation class notice plan, including the long form and summary notices of the certified litigation class, and approving Verita Global LLC as Notice Administrator. Argos produces and distributes cements and aggregates. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sifQBC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Russell T. Burke, Esq. WILLIAMS BURKE LLP 1320 Main Street, Suite 300 Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 665-9670 E-mail: Russell@williamsburke.com - and - Irwin B. Levin, Esq. Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq. Vess A. Miller, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com vmiller@cohenandmalad.com - and - Gregory P. Hansell, Esq. Michael S. Smith, Esq. Elizabeth F. Quinby, Esq. Michael D. Hanify, Esq. PRETI FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP One City Center, P.O. Box 9546 Portland, ME 04112 Telephone: (207) 791-3000 E-mail: ghansel@preti.com msmith@preti.com equinby@preti.com mhanify@preti.com - and - Renae D. Steiner, Esq. Vincent J. Esades, Esq. HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C. 310 Clifton Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403 Telephone: (612) 338-4605 E-mail: rsteiner@heinsmills.com vesades@heinsmills.com ASPIRUS INC: Settles Data Sharing Class Suit With Cash Payments --------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that Aspirus will offer cash payments and privacy protection services to settle a class action lawsuit that claimed that the healthcare provider shared patients' personal information with third parties, including Meta, without consent. The Aspirus class action settlement received preliminary court approval on August 5, 2025 and covers the approximately 291,998 Aspirus patients who have or had a patient portal account with Aspirus that they logged into between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2024. The court-approved website for the Aspirus class action settlement can be found at AspirusDataSettlement.com. Aspirus settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form will all be able to receive one year of CyEx Privacy Shield Pro, which includes CyEx's password scan, VPN in touch, dark web watchlist, password defense, data broker opt-out, digital vault and private search functions and services. All class members should have received an email containing their enrollment code for Privacy Shield Pro, the settlement website states. Class members who no longer have or did not receive that email may contact the settlement administrator using the email or mailing address listed at https://aspirusdatasettlement.com/contact/ All class members may also choose to submit a claim form to receive a one-time $22 cash payment. To submit an Aspirus claim form online, class members can visit this page of the class action settlement website and log in with the unique ID and PIN found in their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, a PDF of the claim form is available to print, fill out and mail back to the address listed on the second page of the form. All claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by December 3, 2025. A hearing is scheduled for November 18, 2025 to determine whether the Aspirus settlement will receive final approval from the court. Settlement benefits will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Aspirus class action lawsuit claimed that the healthcare provider illegally disclosed patients' sensitive, personally identifiable information to third parties, including Meta, without consent. [GN] ASTRIA THERAPEUTICS: M&A Probes Sale to BioCryst Pharmaceuticals ---------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Astria Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATXS) related to its sale to BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Astria shareholders will receive $8.55 in cash per share and 0.59 shares of BioCryst common stock per Astria share. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/astria-therapeutics-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] ATYR PHARMA: Faces Munguia Suit Over Drop of Common Stock Price --------------------------------------------------------------- MARCO MUNGUIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATYR PHARMA INC. and SANJAY S. SHUKLA, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-02681-WQH-SBC (S.D. Cal., October 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding aTyr's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade aTyr common stock at artificially inflated prices between January 16, 2025, and September 12, 2025. Specifically, the Defendants concealed material adverse facts concerning the efficacy of Efzofitimod, particularly, the drug's capability to allow a patient to completely taper their steroid usage. When the truth emerged, the price of aTyr's common stock declined from a closing market price of $6.03 per share on September 12, 2025 to $1.02 per share on September 15, 2025, a decline of 83.2% in the span of just a single day. The Plaintiff and similarly situated investors have sustained significant damages as a result of the Defendants' fraudulent statements, says the suit. aTyr Pharma Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, headquartered in San Diego, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 515 South Flower Street 18th and 19th Floors Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 985-7290 Email: aapton@zlk.com BATCHSERVICE LLC: Violates Right of Publicity, Miller Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- RANDALL MILLER, ISABEL SIPPO STOCKMAN, JOSEPH JACKSON, BRANDY GARNER, SAMIRA SEGRETI, and REX WAER, individually, and as the representatives of classes of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. BATCHSERVICE LLC D/B/A BATCHDATA, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and EQUIMINE INC. D/B/A PROPSTREAM, a California corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2025LA001235 (Ill. Cir., 18th Judicial, Dupage Cty., September 30, 2025) seeks statutory damages, an injunction, and other relief from Defendants for violations of Plaintiffs' right of publicity as protected by statutes in Illinois, California, Indiana, and Alabama. One of Defendants' products is BatchLeads, an online platform that enables users to "identify and engage property owners" by gathering and making searchable the personal information of property owners. The Defendants offer a 7-day free trial to the BatchLeads platform, allowing users access to property owners' identifying information. The purpose of providing a free trial and free access to the identifying information contained on the platform is to market paid subscriptions for the platform. Despite failing to obtain consent, written or otherwise, from Plaintiffs and the Classes, the Defendants nevertheless utilized their personal identifying information for the purpose of enticing users of the BatchLeads platform to enter into paid premium subscriptions for additional access to the platform. In other words, the Defendants used Plaintiffs' and other Class Members' identities for commercial purposes without their permission in violation of the various right of publicity statutes, alleges the suit. BatchService LLC d/b/a BatchData provides software for various real estate professionals such as real estate investors, agents, and mortgage lenders.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick J. Solberg, Esq. Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Wallace C. Solberg, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA DUPAGE FIRM 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: psolberg@andersonwanca.com bwanca@andersonwanca.com wsolberg@andersonwanca.com BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Class Action in N.D. Ill. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP (Labaton) has filed a securities class action lawsuit (the Action) on behalf of its client the Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. (Local 103) against Baxter International, Inc. (Baxter or the Company) (NYSE: BAX) and certain of its executives (collectively, Defendants). The Action, which is captioned Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. v. Baxter International, Inc., No. 25-cv-12672 (N.D. Ill.), asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Baxter common stock between February 23, 2022 and July 30, 2025, inclusive (the Class Period). Baxter is a global healthcare company that develops and sells a range of medical products used in hospitals and other healthcare facilities. Among its product offerings, Baxter recently launched its Novum IQ Large Volume Pump (Novum LVP), a device used for the delivery of intravenous (IV) fluids that carry medications, blood products, and nutrients to patients. Baxter executives declared the Novum LVP launch to be a "landmark achievement" and a "key focus area" for the Company that would be a "promising multiyear growth driver." The Action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants misled investors by failing to disclose that: (a) the Novum LVP suffered systemic defects that caused widespread malfunctions, including underinfusion, overinfusion, and complete non-delivery of fluids, which exposed patients to risks of serious injury or death; (b) Baxter was notified of multiple device malfunctions, injuries, and deaths from these defects; (c) Baxter's attempts to address these defects through customer alerts were inadequate remedial measures, when design flaws persisted and continued to cause serious harm to patients; (d) as a result, there was a heightened risk that customers would be instructed to take existing Novum LVPs out of service and that Baxter would completely pause all new sales of these pumps; and (e) based on the foregoing, Baxter's statements about the safety, efficacy, product rollout, customer feedback and sales prospects of the Novum LVPs were materially false and misleading. Safety concerns regarding Novum LVP began to surface on April 7, 2025, after a Missouri news outlet reported serious safety issues relating to inaccurate infusion with the Novum LVPs based on information from a whistleblower. Just weeks after the whistleblower report, on April 24, 2025, Baxter sent customers a warning letter about potential underinfusion risks associated with the Novum LVP, disclosing only one serious injury linked to this issue. Then, on July 14, 2025, Baxter issued a second warning letter reiterating the underinfusion risks and adding the risk of overinfusion with the Novum LVP. The letter also revealed that Baxter had received 79 reports of serious injury and two reports of patient deaths related to the Novum LVP. The true extent of Defendants' fraud was revealed on July 31, 2025, when the Company announced that it had decided to "voluntarily and temporarily pause shipments and planned installations of the Novum LVP" and that the Company was "unable to currently commit to an exact timing for resuming shipment and installation for Novum LVPs." On this news, Baxter stock dropped 22.4 percent, closing at $21.76 on July 31, 2025. If you purchased or acquired Baxter common stock during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed no later than December 15, 2025. The Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this action. If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Connor C. Boehme, Esq. of Labaton at (212) 907-0780, or via email at cboehme@labaton.com. Local 103 is represented by Labaton, which represents many of the largest pension funds in the United States and internationally with combined assets under management of more than $4.5 trillion. Labaton's litigation reputation is built on its half-century of securities litigation experience, more than ninety full-time attorneys, and in-house team of investigators, financial analysts, and forensic accountants. Labaton has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New York, Delaware, London, and Washington, D.C. [GN] BEACON HILL: Faces Lee Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ MEYLIN LEE, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. BEACON HILL HOSPITALITY LLC, Defendant. Case No. 1:25-cv-24504 (S.D. Fla., September 30, 2025) is an action to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint alleges that Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages, at the rate and a half her regular rate, for every hour that she worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff Lee was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt full-time hourly employee from November 2, 2023 to July 22, 2025, totaling approximately 90 weeks. The Plaintiff had duties as a valet parking cashier with a wage rate of $13 an hour. Plaintiff's overtime rate should be $19.50 an hour. Beacon Hill is a provider of hospitality support services specifically in the healthcare settings. The Company provides hospital staffing, valet services, parking management, shuttle services, patient transportation, etc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com BENAG LLC: Property Not ADA-Compliant, Maurer Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS MAURER, an individual, and THE INDEPENDENCE PROJECT, INC., a New Jersey Non-Profit Corporation, Plaintiffs v. BENAG, LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-16147 (D.N.J., September 30, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on the behalf of all other similarly situated mobility impaired persons, for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The Defendant's property is a restaurant known as Library II, located within Camden County in Voorhees, New Jersey. Plaintiff Maurer has physically visited Defendant's Property and personally encountered exposure to architectural barriers and otherwise harmful conditions that have endangered his safety during his visits to the Property. The architectural barriers and violations of the ADA that Mr. Maurer has personally encountered during his visits to the property involve parking and exterior accessible route, access to goods and services, and restrooms. Benag, LLC owns or operates a place of public accommodation, in this instance a restaurant situated in New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N. East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Telephone: (609) 319-5399 E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com BERRY CORP: M&A Investigates Sale to California Resources --------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating -- Berry Corporation (NASDAQ: BRY) related to its sale to California Resources Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Berry shareholders will have their shares converted into 0.0718 shares of California Resources common stock. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/berry-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- BankFinancial Corporation (NASDAQ: BFIN) related to its sale to First Financial Bancorp. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, BankFinancial shares will be exchanged for 0.48 shares of First Financial common stock. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/bankfinancial-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Premier, Inc. (NASDAQ: PINC) related to its sale to an affiliate of Patient Square Capital. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Premier shareholders will receive $28.25 in cash per share. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/premier-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Blackboxstocks Inc. (NASDAQ: BLBX), relating to the proposed merger with REalloys Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, it is anticipated Blackbox's stockholders will own approximately 7.3% of the combined company's common stock. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/blackboxstocks-inc-blbx/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] BURLINGTON COAT: Filing for Class Certification Due May 29, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL MALDONADO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY WAREHOUSE CORPORATION; BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY WAREHOUSE OF SAN BERNARDINO, INC.; ASC STAFFING GROUP, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:25-cv-01307-AB-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge André Birotte Jr. entered an order granting stipulation to modify scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Motion for Class Certification Filing: May 29, 2026 Opp: June 26, 2026 Reply: July 6, 2026 Hearing: July 24, 2026 Last date to hear motion to amend Jan. 16, 2026 pleadings/add parties: Non-expert discovery cut-off: Oct. 30, 2026 Expert discovery cut-off: Dec. 4, 2026 Last date to hear motions: Feb. 26, 2027 Final pretrial conference: May 21, 2027 Trial: June 28, 2027 at 8:30 a.m. Burlington offers clothing for men's, women's, and children's as well as linens. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PV1KlL at no extra charge.[CC] CALIFORNIA: Judge Certifies Suit Over Opposing Gender Secrecy Rules ------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas More Society reports that in a major victory for parental rights and religious liberty, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez has certified a class action lawsuit representing all California parents and teachers affected by school district policies that conceal children's gender transitions from their families, referred to in the Thomas More Society lawsuit as "Parental Exclusion Policies." The October 15 court order in Mirabelli v. Olson means the case will now proceed on behalf of more than 300,000 California public school teachers and the parents of more than 5 million California public school students who object to the "Parental Exclusion Policies." What started as a challenge by two courageous teachers in the Escondido Union School District is now becoming one of the largest civil rights class actions in state history In the order, Judge Benitez states: "Injunctive relief on behalf of the proposed class would achieve systemic changes to the California Department of Education that would obviate the need for future lawsuits seeking similar relief." The class certification comes at a critical juncture, arriving just one month before a scheduled summary judgment hearing on November 17, 2025, where Judge Benitez will consider whether to rule definitively that California's gender secrecy policies violate parents' and teachers' constitutional rights. "This is a watershed moment for parental rights and religious freedom in education," said Paul M. Jonna, Special Counsel for Thomas More Society and Partner at LiMandri & Jonna LLP. "Judge Benitez has recognized that California's gender secrecy policies affect millions of families and teachers, and that everyone impacted deserves to have the fundamental constitutional issues squarely resolved. With this class action certified, every affected parent and teacher in California now has a voice in court. Our November 17 hearing could finally provide clarity and accountability on these gender secrecy policies that demand secrecy and punish honesty." Parental Exclusion Policies are state-mandated directives that require teachers to hide information about students' gender identity from parents, even when children are presenting publicly as the opposite-sex at school and using opposite-sex facilities. These policies stem from directives issued by the California Department of Education and interpretations by the California Attorney General that treat disclosure of such information to parents as a violation of student privacy rights. "Parents have a fundamental right, recognized by the Supreme Court for over a century, to direct their children's educational and moral upbringing," said Peter Breen, Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation at Thomas More Society. "California's Department of Education and school districts cannot override that right by keeping parents in the dark about major issues and developments in their child's life. Especially on something as sensitive and serious as gender-related confusion. Parents should never be treated as strangers in their own children's lives." The class certification positions the November 17 hearing to potentially deliver a final ruling that would protect all California parents' rights to know what's happening with their children at school and all teachers' rights to communicate honestly, in line with their faith, with parents without fear of punishment. The summary judgment hearing will determine whether Judge Benitez rules that California's policies violate parents' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to direct their children's upbringing and teachers' First Amendment free speech and religious freedom rights. [GN] CASH APP: $12.5MM Settlement Final Court OK Hearing Set Dec. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- In a significant legal development, Cash App has agreed to a $12.5 million settlement in a class action lawsuit over unsolicited promotional text messages. This settlement offers eligible U.S. residents a chance to receive up to $147 each. If you received a referral text message from Cash App between November 14, 2019, and August 7, 2025, you might qualify for this payout. The focus keyword, $147 payment, is applicable for this settlement and is included throughout this article. Claimants must act before the deadline to ensure eligibility. What Is the $147 Payment? The $147 payment stems from allegations that Cash App violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited text messages promoting its services. The lawsuit focused on Cash App’s “Invite Friends” feature, which allowed pre-written referral texts to be sent without explicit consent. Eligible recipients of these messages may now claim compensation. The settlement ensures that individuals affected receive a fair amount while raising awareness about unsolicited digital promotions. The $147 payment is the maximum amount per claimant under this agreement. Who Is Eligible? Eligibility requirements for the $147 payment are clear. Individuals must reside in the United States during the specified period. They must have received an unsolicited referral text message from Cash App between November 14, 2019, and August 7, 2025. Furthermore, recipients must not have given clear, affirmative consent to receive promotional messages. Residents of Washington are specifically highlighted in the settlement. Other U.S. residents meeting these conditions are also eligible. This ensures a wide range of claimants can benefit from the $147 payment class action. How Much Can You Receive? The settlement amount is $12.5 million, and payments depend on the number of valid claims. Each claimant may receive between $88 and $147, based on the total number of claims submitted. The exact payout will be calculated after the claims are verified. This amount compensates individuals for the inconvenience of receiving spam texts. The $147 payment is the maximum, ensuring each eligible claimant receives a substantial reward. Distribution methods and timelines will be clearly communicated through the official settlement website. Important Dates Claimants must be aware of the following dates: the claim deadline is October 27, 2025, and the final approval hearing is scheduled for December 2, 2025. Timely submission is crucial to ensure eligibility for the $147 payment. Missing the claim deadline will disqualify applicants. Therefore, potential claimants should prepare documentation and submit claims as early as possible. Staying informed about these dates ensures you do not miss the chance to receive compensation from the Cash App $12.5 million settlement. How to File a Claim To file a claim, visit the official settlement website at CashAppSettlement.com. Claimants need to provide their phone number that received the unsolicited text and any proof of receipt. Claims can be submitted online or by mail, but accuracy is essential to avoid delays. Once submitted, claims will be reviewed, and payment distribution will follow. This process ensures that eligible claimants can successfully receive the $147 payment. Following instructions carefully helps maximize your chance of a successful claim. Settlement Overview Settlement Amount $12.5 Million Estimated Payout $88-$147 per person Claim Deadline October 27, 2025 Final Approval December 2, 2025 Final Thoughts This $147 payment settlement highlights the importance of consent in digital communications. If you received unsolicited messages from Cash App, now is your chance to claim compensation. Submit your claim before the October 27 deadline to ensure inclusion in the $12.5 million settlement distribution. This $147 payment is a significant reminder for companies to respect privacy and consent, providing real compensation to affected individuals. FAQs Q1: Do I need a Cash App account to qualify? No, a Cash App account is not required. Q2: How will I receive my payment? Payments are via check, PayPal, Venmo, or direct deposit. Q3: Can I submit a claim for multiple messages? Yes, each unsolicited message counts. Q4: What if I miss the deadline? Late claims will not be accepted. Q5: Where can I stay updated? Check the official settlement website regularly. [GN] CEPTON INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Portnoy Law Firm advises Cepton, Inc., ("Cepton" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CPTN) investors of a class action on behalf of investors that bought securities between July 29, 2024 and January 6, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Cepton investors have until December 8, 2025 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by phone 844-767-8529 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss their legal rights, or join the case via https://portnoylaw.com/cepton. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for pursuing claims to recover their losses. This investigation concerns whether Cepton, Inc. and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. PORTNOY LAW FIRM Tel: (310) 692-8883 E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com www.portnoylaw.com [GN] CHEMOURS COMPANY: Loses Bid for Partial Summary Judgment -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENT NIX, et al., v. THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, et al., Case No. 7:17-cv-00189-D (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge James Dever III entered an order: -- denying the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude Travers; -- denying the Defendants' motion to exclude Gamble; -- denying the Defendants' motion to exclude Duncklee; -- granting the Defendants' motions to exclude DeWitt; -- denying the defendants' motions to exclude Griffith; -- denying the Defendants' motion to exclude Michaels; -- denying the Defendants' motion to file a supplemental motion about Albright, -- denying the Plaintiffs' motion to strike concerning The Defendants' Albright reply; -- denying without prejudice the Defendants' motion to strike Albright; -- granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to exclude Smith; -- granting the Defendants' motion to exclude DeGrandchamp; and -- denying without prejudice the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment and defendants' motion for class decertification. On May 18, 2022, the plaintiffs moved for class certification and filed a memorandum of law and exhibits in support. The plaintiffs' claims concern defendants' discharge of wastewater allegedly containing perfluorinated compounds ("PFCs"). The Plaintiffs allege that "PFCs are highly toxic to humans" and that "scientists have linked PFCs to kidney cancer, testicular cancer, prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, liver disease, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, hypercholesterolemia, and pregnancy-induced hypertension, among other illnesses." The Plaintiffs are individuals who reside in counties "that use the Cape Fear River as a primary source of drinking water." In the courts order of Oct. 4, 2023, the court described in detail plaintiffs' then-putative classes and sub-classes. The court granted in part plaintiffs· motion for class certification, excluded plaintiffs· proposed epidemiological subclass, and certified two classes: "(1) a 'public utility class· of property owners or renters whose property is serviced by a public water utility servicing Bladen, Brunswick, Cumberland, New Hanover, and Pender Counties that draws water from or obtains water drawn from the Cape Fear River downstream or Fayetteville Works; and (2) a 'groundwater class' of property owners or renters whose property receives drinking water from a groundwater source with quantifiable concentrations of any of the Fayetteville Works ("FW PFAS") as defined in Exhibit A." Chemours manufactures and produces agricultural chemicals. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v6vyu6 at no extra charge.[CC] CHICAGO BREAD: Cohan Sues Over Discriminative Property ------------------------------------------------------ Howard Cohan, and others similarly situated v. Chicago Bread, LLC, d/b/a PANERA BREAD, Case No. 1:25-cv-12385 (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 CHURCH STREET: Class Cert. Bids in Slaven Due Jan. 30, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Slaven v. Church Street Restaurant Associates of Saratoga, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00227 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Feb. 19, 2025), the Hon. Judge David N. Hurd entered an order resetting the following deadlines: -- Pre-class Certification Discovery deadline Nov. 28, 2025 -- Class Certification Motions due by: Jan. 30, 2026 The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC] CIRCLE K: Abboud Bid for Class Certification Tossed --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Monica Abboud, v. Circle K Stores Incorporated, Case No. 2:23-cv-01683-DWL (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Lanza entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The case will proceed solely on the basis of the Plaintiff's individual claim. In the tentative ruling issued before oral argument, the Court concluded the proposed Subclass should be certified. With the benefit of oral argument, the Court changes course and agrees with the Defendant that Plaintiff cannot satisfy the predominance and typicality requirements due to the EBR issues presented by this case. The Court concludes that individual issues related to the Defendant's EBR defense will still predominate over common issues with respect to the proposed Subclass. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending several text messages to her after she registered her phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry ("DNC Registry"). The Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant sent identical text messages to millions of other people whose telephone numbers appear on the DNC Registry (the "proposed Class"), including smaller group of people—likely numbering in the tens of thousands—who, like her, never provided their telephone phone number to Defendant (the "proposed Subclass"). On Aug. 17, 2023, Plaintiff initiated this action. On Oct. 20, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint alleging additional facts to support her TCPA claim and revising the class definition. The proposed Class includes: "All persons whose residential phone numbers are registered on the DNC Registry and to whom the Defendant sent more than one text message within a 12-month period, which text messages read, in part, "Circle K: Reply 'YES' to Sign Up to receive special offers via txt message" or "Circle K: Reply 'YES' to get offers via txt." The Plaintiff seeks certification of the proposed Subclass, which includes: "All persons who are on the DNC Registry, "who did not provide their telephone number to [Defendant]," and "to whom [Defendant] delivered, or directed to be delivered, more than one text message within a 12-month period, which read, in part, either 'Circle K: Reply 'YES' to Sign Up to receive special offers via txt message' or 'Circle K: Reply 'YES' to get offers via txt.'" The Defendant is a corporation headquartered in Tempe, Arizona, and its "business is selling fuel and convenience store items." A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xtjlca at no extra charge.[CC] CITIZEN WATCH: Faces Class Action Suit Over Advertised Fake Sales ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Alexandra Fay is suing Citizen Watch Company of America Inc. Why: Fay alleges Citizen Watch advertised fake sales on its website. Where: The Citizen Watch class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Citizen Watch Company of America advertised fake sales on its website. Plaintiff Alexandra Fay filed the Citizen Watch class action complaint on July 25 in California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the class action lawsuit, Citizen Watch advertised fake sales on its website, deceiving consumers into believing they were getting a discount when they were really paying the regular price. Fay alleges the company's website often showed discounts of approximately 20% that were almost always available. When one sale ended, Citizen Watch would advertise another, the lawsuit says. "Citizen Watch tricks consumers into thinking they are getting a discount when they are really just paying the regular price," the Citizen Watch class action lawsuit alleges. Citizen Watch sales were persistent, class action lawsuit alleges Fay says she bought a watch from Citizen Watch's website and was deceived by its fake sales. She alleges Citizen Watch's sales were persistent, with at least 87% of the dates reviewed by her counsel showing a sitewide sale. The lawsuit alleges Citizen Watch's advertised regular prices were not the prevailing prices during the 90 days immediately preceding the advertisement of the purported discounts. "Regularly, Citizen Watch Products are available from third-party websites and retailers for prices below Defendant's listed regular prices," the Citizen Watch class action lawsuit says. Fay also alleges Citizen Watch violated California's False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law as well as breached its contract and warranties with consumers. She is looking to represent anyone who purchased one or more Citizen Watch products advertised at a discount during the applicable statute of limitations period. The plaintiff is seeking certification of the Citizen Watch class action, damages, restitution and disgorgement, injunctive relief and payment of attorneys' fees and costs. Fashion retailer Ashley Stewart was recently hit with a similar lawsuit alleging its products were almost always available at the advertised discounted prices. The plaintiff is represented by Simon Franzini and Grace Bennett of Dovel & Luner LLP. The Citizen Watch class action lawsuit is Fay v. Citizen Watch Company of America Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01895-LL-DDL, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. [GN] CLEVELAND-CLIFFS STEEL: Underpays Operating Technicians, Kuhns Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN KUHNS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEVELAND-CLIFFS STEEL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01216-UNA (D. Del., September 30, 2025) is a collective action complaint against the Defendant for its failure to pay employees overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FLSA with respect to Named Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective by failing to compensate them for overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek because of Defendant's policies and/or practices. Named Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately April 2021 until September 2025 in the position of operating technician. Cleveland-Cliffs Steel Corporation is a producer of flat-rolled steel in North America. The Company operates steel manufacturing facilities across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 North Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com CMS ENERGY: Status Report Entered in NewPage Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NewPage Wisconsin System Inc. v. CMS Energy Resource Management Company, et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00240 (W.D. Wisc., Filed April 21, 2009), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley 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. CMS operates as a consumer energy company. The Company offers electric and natural gas distribution. CMS operates as a consumer energy company.[CC] COACH FOR SENIORS: Underpays Company Employees, Velasquez Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ISELA VELASQUEZ and ALIETA VELASQUEZ GONZALES, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFFS v. COACH FOR SENIORS, INC., DEFENDANT, Case No. 1:25-cv-01761 (E.D. Va., October 13, 2025) is a class and collective action complaint against the Defendant for violations of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the Virginia Wage Payment Act. The complaint relates that during the period October 13, 2022, through the date of judgment in this case (the "Class Period") Coach for Seniors, Inc. ("CFS" or "Defendant") unlawfully withheld, retained, and failed to pay earned overtime premium wages to Named Plaintiffs and other similarly situated caregivers (the "Class Members"). The named Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all Class Members who "opt-in" to this action, bring claims as a FLSA collective action against CFS, seeking class-wide recovery of earned and unpaid "half-time" premium wages for all overtime worked during the Class Period exceeding 40 hours per week, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Named Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all Class Members, also bring this case against CFS as a Class Action under Federal Rule 23, seeking class-wide recovery under the VWPA in the form of earned and unpaid "half-time" premium wages for all overtime worked during the Class Period exceeding 40 hours per week, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, says the suit. Plaintiffs Isela Velasquez and Alieta Velasquez Gonzales served as caregivers at CFS. CFS is a corporation, formed under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, operating out of a principal office located in Fairfax County, Virginia. It operates as a for-profit business providing third-party caregiver and related services for clients within the Commonwealth of Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER, & GREENBERG LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301-587-9373 E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com COFFEE BOYS: Vega Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Coffee Shop Workers ----------------------------------------------------------------- FERNANDO VEGA, ERENDIRA GONZALES, EMILIO VEGA, and LUZ VEGA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COFFEE BOYS LLC d/b/a MAIN STREET COFFEE and KEVIN GUMB, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05672 (E.D.N.Y., October 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, failure to provide accurate wage statements, retaliation, and unlawful retention of tips. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as coffee shop employees at any time between 2021 and 2025. Coffee Boys LLC, doing business as Main Street Coffee, is a coffee shop owner and operator based in Staten Island, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Wisniewski, Esq. ROBERT WISNIEWSKI PC 17 State Street, Suite 820 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 267-2101 CREDIT BUREAU: Hamilton Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNA J. HAMILTON, n/k/a DONNA J. LUNSFORD, and Richard D. Myers, Bankruptcy trustee for the Bankruptcy estate of Donna Jean Lunsford, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CREDIT BUREAU SERVICES, INC. and C.J. Tighe, Case No. 8:20-cv-00141-JFB-RCC (D. Neb.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying case to proceed as a class action defined as: CLASS ONE "All (i) Nebraska residents to whom CBS sent a letter in the form of Exhibit 2A, Exhibit 2B and/or Exhibit 2C (ii) in an attempt to collect a debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes as shown by the Defendants' or the creditors' records (iii) allegedly due for a medical obligation." For the purpose of determining liability for each letter the class may be divided into subclasses, e.g. – Subclass A for Exhibit 2A, Subclass B for Exhibit 2B and Subclass C for Exhibit 2C. Subclass A "All (i) Nebraska residents against whom the Defendants assessed interest (ii) in an attempt to collect a medical debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes as shown by the Defendants' or the creditors' records (iii) where the interest was not expressly authorized in an underlying written agreement creating the alleged debt or allowed by law." Subclass B "All (i) Nebraska residents who paid interest (ii) in an attempt to collect a debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes as shown by the Defendants' or the creditors' records (iii) allegedly due for a medical obligation." Subclass C "All (i) Nebraska residents who received Exhibit C and the alleged debt including interest was reported to a credit reporting agency or the account was not reported at all to a credit reporting agency (ii) in an attempt to collect a debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes as shown by the Defendants' or the creditors' records (iii) allegedly due for a medical obligation." CLASS TWO "All (i) Nebraska residents to whom CBS sent a letter in the form of Exhibit B and/or Exhibit C (ii) which was not returned as undelivered (iii) in an attempt to collect a debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes as shown by the Defendants' or the creditors' records (iv) allegedly due for a medical obligation, (v) who had not been first sent a letter in the form of Exhibit A by CBS on the same account." The Plaintiffs request that this matter be certified as a class 7 8 action, that the Court appoint Plaintiffs to represent the classes and Pamela A. Car, and William L. Reinbrecht as class counsel. The action challenges the Defendants' purported violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act ("NCPA"). The policy and practice of Defendants is to send collection letters in an attempt to collect an alleged unpaid medical account and the collection of 12% interest under Neb. Rev. Stat. section 45-104 ("prejudgment interest") without a lawsuit and obtaining a judgment. Credit is a full-service accounts receivable management company dedicated to serving our local and regional communities. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mjUEnZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Pamela A. Car, Esq. William L. Reinbrecht, Esq. CAR & REINBRECHT, P.C. 2120 S. 72nd Street, Suite 1125 Omaha, NE 68124 Telephone: (402) 391-8484 E-mail: pacar@cox.net CREDIT CUBE: Armstrong Sues Over Deceptive Loan Practices --------------------------------------------------------- TERRELL ARMSTRONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CREDIT CUBE, also known as CreditCube; BEN G. RAY, III; and NORTH AMERICAN BANKING COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00916 (M.D.N.C., Oct. 9, 2025) alleges violation of the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act, the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in making and collection of unlawful loans. These loans, which are for relatively small amounts of money and short terms, are saddled with triple-digit interest rates. The usurious lending scheme engages in and affects interstate commerce. It results in North Carolina consumers being lured into predatory loans with interest rates that far exceed twice the prohibited rate in North Carolina. The enterprise exists for the purpose of collecting unlawful debts, says the suit. Credit Cube, also known as CreditCube is an online lender that offers loans to consumers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Harris, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Email: sharris@brysonpllc.com - and - W. Stacy Miller, Esq. MaryAnne M. Hamilton, Esq. MILLER LAW GROUP, PLLC NC. State Bar No. 59323 2424 Glenwood Ave, Suite 201 Raleigh, NC 27608 Telephone: (919) 348-4361 Email: stacy@millerlawgroupnc.com maryanne@millerlawgroupnc.com CSX TRANSPORTATION: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Webb ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN WEBB, et al., v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No. 6:23-cv-00211-REW-HAI (E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Ingram entered an order amending Scheduling Order as follows: 1. Per Rule 26(a)(2), no later than Oct. 30, 2025, the Plaintiff shall disclose the identity of expert witnesses who may be used at trial, accompanied by written reports signed by the Rule 26(a)(2)(B) expert witnesses and/or written summaries consistent with Rule 26(a)(2)(C), as applicable, all compliant with the rule. These disclosures need not be filed in the Court record. No later than Nov. 20, 2025, the Defendant shall provide same. Supplementations under Rule 26(e) are due no later than 30 days after the party becomes aware of the need for supplementation. 2. All expert discovery related to class certification shall be completed on or before Dec. 22, 2025. 3. The inspection of the failed wheel bearing from the derailed train by the Plaintiffs' experts shall occur on Oct. 9, 2025. 4. No later than Jan. 21, 2026, counsel for the parties shall file any class-certification motions with responses thereto in accordance with the local rules. CSX is a Class I freight railroad company. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fCjO20 at no extra charge.[CC] CUSTOM HOMES: Faces Ortiz Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Ortiz, Juan M. Ortiz, Samuel Marquin, Rigoberto Marquin, Juan Mendoza, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. Custom Homes By Kaye, Inc., d/b/a Kayes Lifestyle Homes, SSCC Group, Inc., and Jose L. Henriquez, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00864 (M.D Fla., September 30, 2025) is an action to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages and constructive retaliatory discharge under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit is brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other current and former employees similarly situated and who worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after May 2024, without being adequately compensated. The Plaintiffs were hired as non-exempt, full-time construction workers from approximately May 15, 2024 to June 24, 2024, a period of about six weeks. The Plaintiffs were constructively discharged because Defendants deliberately created unfair working conditions that a reasonable person could not accept, says the suit. Custom Homes By Kaye, Inc. is engaged in providing construction services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com DASMEN RESIDENTIAL: Faces Pagan Suit Over Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------- Felix M. Pagan, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Dasmen Residential LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-01889 (M.D. Fla., September 30, 2025) is an action to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint alleges that the Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages at the required rate of one-and-a-half times his regular rate for all hours worked over 40. The Plaintiff objected to Defendant's unlawful practice of rolling over overtime hours into subsequent weeks with reduced schedules and repeatedly complained to management. On or about July 28, 2025, the Defendant terminated Plaintiff under pretextual grounds, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff was hired as a non-exempt, full-time, hourly employee from July 1, 2021, through July 28, 2025, a period of more than four years, as a porter and technician, but was consistently required to perform handyman and maintenance duties. Dasmen Residential LLC is a privately held real estate investment and management firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com DECKERS OUTDOOR: Czerwien Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Shawn Czerwien and George Attia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DECKERS OUTDOOR CORPORATION D/B/A HOKA, Case No. 25CV05602 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Barbara, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Oct. 9, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-09654. The Plaintiffs assert 5 causes of action against Deckers: breach of express warranty, Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, and Unjust Enrichment. Plaintiffs' Complaint also includes a request for injunctive relief.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Monee Takla Hanna, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 19191 South Vermont Avenue, Suite 900 Torrance, CA 90502 Phone: 424.221.7400 Facsimile: 424.221.7499 Email: monee.hanna@nelsonmullins.com DEERE & COMPANY: Workman Class Action Dismissed ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEROY WORKMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DEERE & COMPANY, Case No. 4:24-cv-04245-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Sara Darrow entered an order denying the Plaintiff Leroy Workman's Motion for Leave to File Its Opposition Memorandum to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss: -- Motion for Leave to Reply to Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Opposition Memorandum to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, is moot. -- The Defendant Deere & Company's Motion to Dismiss, is granted. -- The Complaint, is dismissed without prejudice. Workman is granted leave to file an amended complaint, if he so desires, to address the deficiencies identified in this Order by Oct. 14, 2025. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in dismissal of this suit. Because Workman's alleged economic damages are barred by South Carolina’s economic loss rule and because he failed to allege any physical harm, his strict products liability claims for design defect and manufacturing defect are dismissed. The Plaintiff Leroy Workman brings this putative class action suit against Deere "on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons who purchased or leased any John Deere Compact Utility Tractors sold from November 2017 to July 2024" with the model numbers 1023E, 1025R, and 2025R. On Sept. 26, 2024, Deere issued a Recall for about 148,000 of the Class Tractors due to a Brake System Defect "in which the front crash hazard." Workman "purchased his 2025R Compact Utility Tractor within the applicable recall period." He brings five claims against Deere: (1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, (2) unjust enrichment, (3) strict liability for design defect, (4) strict liability for manufacturing defect, and (5) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"). Deere manufactures agricultural machinery, heavy equipment, forestry machinery, diesel engines, drivetrains used in heavy equipment and lawn care equipment. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6uXoCb at no extra charge.[CC] DETROIT SALT: Seever Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Scoop Operators ------------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL SEEVER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE DETROIT SALT COMPANY, L.C., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-13191-LVP-CI (E.D. Mich., October 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a scoop operator from approximately February 2022 through February 2024. The Detroit Salt Company, LC is a salt mine operator, with its principal place of business in Detroit, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer L. McManus, Esq. FAGAN MCMANUS, PC 25892 Woodward Avenue Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 542-6300 Email: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com DICK'S SPORTING: Court Transfers Price Fixing Lawsuit to Colorado ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred major antitrust class action lawsuits accusing Dick's Sporting Goods, Bass Pro Shops, the Archery Trade Association and others of price fixing archery products to Colorado. The case will be the first multidistrict litigation, or MDL, in Colorado in more than 15 years. The panel decision consolidates nearly 20 federal lawsuits against the archery industry filed across the country. Olson Grimsley partner Eric Olson presented argument to the panel last month urging them to consolidate the cases in Colorado. According to the lawsuit filed in August, several major archery companies conspired to inflate prices in a long-running scheme. The complaint, brought on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers, alleges that a group of manufacturers, retailers and a trade association worked together to fix and raise prices on archery products, forcing consumers to pay more. The complaint names the Archery Trade Association, manufacturers, retailers including Bass Pro Shops, Cabela's, Dick's Sporting Goods, and software companies TrackStreet Inc. and NeuIntel LLC. According to the lawsuit, as early as January 1, 2014, the defendants used the trade association as a central hub to coordinate and implement price-fixing policies. These policies, which set a price floor for products, were allegedly used to suppress competition and drive up prices for consumers. The complaints claim that the software companies monitored and enforced these price-fixing policies. "For more than a decade, the complaint alleges these companies have been conspiring against their own customers," said Olson Grimsley partner Eric Olson, attorney for the plaintiffs. "We explain that they created a market with inflated prices on archery products. We look forward to holding these companies accountable for the injuries they have caused consumers." The lawsuit asserts that these actions violated U.S. antitrust law and seeks treble damages as well as an injunction to prevent the defendants from continuing their anti-competitive behavior. The plaintiffs are represented by Olson Grimsley attorneys Eric Olson, Sean Grimsley, and Kenzo Kawanabe along with co-counsel Kimberly Justice and Matthew Ruan at Freed Kanner. The JPML case is In re Archery Products Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3160. About Olson Grimsley Olson Grimsley Kawanabe Hinchcliff & Murray LLC is a national law firm headquartered in Denver, with the mission of holding the powerful to account. Before founding the firm, the team of talented litigators handled some of the country's most significant civil rights, antitrust, mass tort, consumer, intellectual property and environmental cases in courthouses from California to New York, and from rural Arkansas to the U.S. Supreme Court. They are now focusing their expertise on advocating for clients in the most consequential trials and appeals nationwide. More information at olsongrimsley.com. Contacts Fabian Gutierrez, Esq. fabian@androvett.com 800-559-4534 [GN] DISCORD INC: Faces Data Breach Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Adams, writing for About Lawsuits, reports that a Florida man has filed a class action lawsuit over a recent Discord data breach, accusing the platform of failing to meet industry standards for safeguarding users' sensitive personal information. The complaint was brought by Thong Nguyen in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on October 13, naming Discord Inc. as the sole defendant. Discord is a free chat platform that supports voice, video and text communication, allowing people to gather in public or private groups known as "servers." While it first gained traction among gamers, it has since expanded to include communities focused on art, education, work and other shared interests. Users can join existing servers or set up their own, organizing discussions through dedicated voice and text channels. However, the platform has come under scrutiny in recent months due to its connection with a number of Roblox lawsuits being filed over child sexual exploitation. These lawsuits allege that child predators who initially make contact with their victims through the Roblox online gaming platform, often move their conversations to platforms like Discord or Instagram, where they continue the grooming and sextortion of minors. As the number of Roblox sexual exploitation lawsuits continues to increase, more and more parents are coming forward claiming that Roblox, Discord and other platforms have failed to protect minors by not implementing and enforcing adequate safety measures, which has led to in-person assaults, sextortion, explicit image exchange and severe psychological harm for their children. This latest Discord class action lawsuit focuses on a separate problem the platform is facing, after millions of users had their personal information exposed during a massive data breach that was discovered on October 3, 2025. The incident reportedly occurred after one of Discord's third-party customer service vendors was compromised, allowing an unauthorized party to access user data. According to the complaint, the breach may have exposed: -- Names -- Usernames -- IP addresses -- Purchase history -- Payment methods -- And the last four digits of users' credit cards While Discord publicly acknowledged the breach in an online notice, the lawsuit contends the company failed to disclose key details about the cause, scope or remedial measures taken to prevent future incidents. Nguyen claims the breach could have been prevented if Discord had implemented basic security measures recommended by the FBI and Microsoft, such as encryption, multi-factor authentication, firewall protections and employee training. The lawsuit further accuses Discord of violating Federal Trade Commission (FTC) data protection guidelines and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework, which establish minimum safeguards for companies handling personal information. In addition, Discord allegedly failed to monitor its third-party vendors, encrypt sensitive data or purge old user records, despite assurances to customers that it maintained strict confidentiality and would delete unnecessary personal data. "Defendant knowingly obtained sensitive PII and had a resulting duty to securely maintain that information in confidence. Plaintiff and Class Members would not have provided their PII to Defendant if they had known that Defendant would not ensure that it used adequate security measures." — Thong Nguyen v. Discord Inc. Nguyen raises allegations of negligence, negligence per se, breach of express contract and unjust enrichment. He is seeking class action certification for his complaint, in addition to injunctive and declaratory relief that would compel the company to strengthen its cybersecurity infrastructure, undergo regular third-party security audits, and establish firm data retention and deletion policies to prevent similar breaches in the future. Roblox Sexual Exploitation Lawsuits Amid the data breach controversy, Discord currently faces scrutiny for its role in a growing number of Roblox sexual exploitation lawsuits, which have been brought nationwide, alleging that Roblox and other online platforms have failed to protect children from assaults, sextortion and various forms of psychological abuse by sexual predators. In one instance, a wrongful death lawsuit filed in California earlier this month, claims a 15-year-old boy took his own life after being groomed and blackmailed by a predator on Roblox and Discord. This complaint was one of the first to directly link sextortion on Roblox and Discord to a child's suicide. With a multitude of similar claims pending nationwide, a motion has been brought before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to consolidate all Roblox child exploitation lawsuits into an MDL, or multidistrict litigation centered in the Northern District of California. If the JPML decides to centralize the cases, they will be coordinated before a single federal judge for pretrial proceedings, with each lawsuit continuing as an individual claim. Should the parties fail to reach a resolution or Roblox settlement during that process, the cases would be sent back to their original courts for separate trials. Families who believe they or their children were harmed through Roblox can request a free, confidential case review to determine eligibility for a lawsuit or potential settlement. Roblox lawyers handling these claims work on a contingency basis, meaning clients do not pay any fees or costs unless compensation is recovered. [GN] DISCORD INC: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Jeska Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LORAINNE JESKA and SARAH CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DISCORD, INC. and ZENDESK, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-08693-VC (N.D. Cal., October 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence, breach of implied contracts, breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment, and violations of California Consumer Privacy Act, California Unfair Competition Law, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach beginning on September 20, 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Discord, Inc. is a software company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Zendesk, Inc. is a software company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Gia Jung, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcom Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 Email: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com tloeser@cpmlegal.com gjung@cpmlegal.com - and - Karin B. Swope, Esq. Andrew J. Fuller, Esq. Jacob M. Alhadeff, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 Facsimile: (206)-299-4184 Email: kswope@cpmlegal.com afuller@cpmlegal.com jalhadeff@cpmlegal.com DR PEPPER: Faces Class Suit Over Canada Dry Product Origin ---------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Karin Piotroski filed a class action lawsuit against Dr Pepper/Seven Up Inc. Why: Piotroski alleges the company's Canada Dry beverages are falsely labeled as being produced in Canada. Where: The Canada Dry class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Dr Pepper/Seven Up of falsely marketing its Canada Dry beverages as being produced in Canada. Plaintiff Karin Piotroski filed the class action complaint against Dr Pepper/Seven Up in New York federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. The class action lawsuit alleges that the company misled consumers into believing that the beverages are produced in Canada by using the phrase "Canada Dry" on the label. Piotroski claims that consumers interpret the Canada Dry label to mean that the beverages are produced in and imported from Canada, when in reality, they are produced in the United States. "By labeling the Products with the Canada Representation, Defendant creates consumer deception and confusion," the Canada Dry class action lawsuit says. Canada Dry class action: Consumers pay premium for 'authentic' products Piotroski says that consumers are willing to pay premium prices for products that are authentically connected to a significant geographical area, such as Canada. In the case of Canada Dry, consumers expect the beverages to be made in Canada, the plaintiff argues. "Defendant's marketing and advertising of the Products gives consumers the impression that they are produced in Canada," the Canada Dry class action lawsuit says. Piotroski says that the verbiage used on the packaging leads consumers to believe that the beverages are from Canada, and consumers have no way of knowing that they are actually produced in the United States. The plaintiff alleges that Dr Pepper/Seven Up's false, misleading and deceptive representations and omissions are likely to continue to deceive and mislead reasonable consumers and the general public. As a result, Piotroski claims that consumers paid a premium for products that are not what they purport to be or what they bargained for. Piotroski is looking to represent anyone in New York who bought at least one of the products since Aug. 29, 2022. She is suing for violations of New York consumer laws and seeks certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. In another false advertising case, Dr Pepper faced a class action lawsuit alleging it misled consumers by labeling its Snapple beverages as "all natural" even though they contain synthetic citric acid. What do you think of the allegations made in this Canada Dry class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Ben Travis of Ben Travis Law APC and Michael R. Reese and Charles D. Moore of Reese LLP. The Canada Dry class action lawsuit is Piotroski v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-04818, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. [GN] DRAKE FIELD: Faces Rivers Suit Over FLSA Violation -------------------------------------------------- RYAN RIVERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DRAKE FIELD SERVICES LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-04880 (S.D. Tex., October 13, 2025) is a collective action complaint against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Drake Field Services LLC under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Rivers worked for the Defendant from November 2024 until August 2025. Drake paid Rivers and workers like him a day rate--a flat amount for each day worked--without regard to how many hours they worked each week. Rivers and the other workers like him often worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Drake improperly paid these workers a single day rate for all hours worked each day, even when they were working more than 40 hours in a week, says the suit. Rivers worked for Drake as a medic. Drake Field Services LLC ("Drake") is a domestic limited liability company that staffs medical and safety personnel to third parties in a variety of industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET LAW PC 2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713 999 5200 E-mail: matt@parmet.law DREW BOSTOCK: Summary Judgment OK'd on Bond Denial Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMON RODRIGUEZ VAZQUEZ, on behalf of himself as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. DREW BOSTOCK, et al, Case No. 3:25-cv-05240-TMC (W.D. Wash.), the Court entered an order as follows: 1. Summary judgment is granted to the Bond Denial Class on their claims that their detention under 8 U.S.C. section 1225(b)(2) is unlawful. As set forth in the class certification order, the Bond Denial Class is defined as: "all noncitizens without lawful status detained at the Northwest ICE Processing Center who (1) have entered or will enter the United States without inspection, (2) are not apprehended upon arrival, (3) are not or will not be subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(c), section 1225(b)(1), or section 1231 at the time the noncitizen is scheduled for or requests a bond hearing." 2. The Court declares that Bond Denial Class members are detained under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a) and are not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. section 1225(b)(2). The Court further declares that the Tacoma Immigration Court's practice of denying bond to Bond Denial Class members on the basis of section 1225(b)(2) violates the Immigration and Nationality Act. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TdSrPi at no extra charge.[CC] DREW BOSTOCK: Vazquez Wins Partial Summary Judgment --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMON RODRIGUEZ VAZQUEZ, on behalf of himself as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. DREW BOSTOCK, et al, Case No. 3:25-cv-05240-TMC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment and denying the defendants' motion to dismiss: 1. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied. 2. The Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is granted. 3. Summary judgment is granted to the Bond Denial Class on their claims that their detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2) is unlawful. As set forth in the class certification order, the Bond Denial Class is defined as: "All noncitizens without lawful status detained at the Northwest ICE Processing Center who (1) have entered or will enter the United States without inspection, (2) are not apprehended upon arrival, (3) are not or will not be subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(c), section 1225(b)(1), or section 1231 at the time the noncitizen is scheduled for or requests a bond hearing." 4. The Court declares that Bond Denial Class members are detained under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a) and are not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. section 1225(b)(2). The Court further declares that the Tacoma Immigration Court's practice of denying bond to Bond Denial Class members on the basis of section 1225(b)(2) violates the Immigration and Nationality Act. 5. The Court will enter final judgment in a separate document on the claims of the Bond Denial Class. The case arises from a practice by the Tacoma Immigration Court of interpreting the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") to require detention without the possibility of bond for noncitizens1 who entered the United States without inspection, even if they have lived here for years and can prove they present neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. On April 24, 2025, the Court granted named Plaintiff Ramon Rodriguez Vazquez's individual motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that the Tacoma Immigration Court's practice was likely illegal. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2W8a9Z at no extra charge.[CC] DUKE ENERGY: Jones Seeks to Certify Property Owner Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clyde Marcus Jones, II; Dennis Phillips, and Deborah Phillips, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Duke Energy Corporation and Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01281-MGL (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting certification of a class of waterfront property owners on Lake Wateree, South Carolina, and appointing the undersigned as Class Counsel. The proposed class is readily identifiably and meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) (generally referred to as numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy) and (b)(3). Duke is an American electric power and natural gas holding company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eMCgBC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jessica L. Fickling, Esq. Jim May, Esq. M. Lucy Dinkins, Esq. WYCHE, P.A. Columbia, SC 29211-2247 Telephone: (803) 254-6542 E-mail: jfickling@wyche.com jmay@wyche.com ldinkins@wyche.com - and - Vincent A. Sheheen, Esq. Austin M. Sheheen, Esq. SAVAGE, ROYAL & SHEHEEN, LLP Camden, SC 29021 Telephone: (803) 432-4391 E-mail: vsheheen@thesavagefirm.com asheheen@thesavagefirm.com - and - A. Gibson Solomons, III, Esq. SPEIGHTS & SOLOMONS, LLC Hampton, SC 29924 Telephone: (803) 943-4444 E-mail: gsolomons@speightsandsolomons.com DUKE UNIVERSITY: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Beroset Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- FRANCES BEROSET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Duke University Faculty and Staff Retirement Plan, Plaintiff v. DUKE UNIVERSITY; THE INVESTMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE DUKE UNIVERSITY FACULTY AND STAFF RETIREMENT PLAN; JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00919 (M.D.N.C., Oct. 9, 2025) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, throughout the class period, the Defendants consistently allocated millions of dollars to offset future Company contributions, while failing to allocate any forfeiture funds to administrative expenses. Additionally, the Defendants' imprudent and disloyal decision left millions of dollars of unpaid administrative expenses for the participants to pay during each year of the Class Period. The Defendants also declined to allocate forfeited funds to the millions of dollars of unpaid administrative expenses even once the Company's contributions were offset, leaving up to a million dollars in unused forfeitures during the Class Period. The Defendants chose to allow millions of dollars to sit unused rather than offset administrative expenses or otherwise benefit the Plan, says the suit. The Defendants thus acted imprudently and disloyally by consistently choosing to allocate forfeitures to exclusively offset company contributions, all while leaving millions of dollars of unallocated forfeiture funds and millions of dollars of administrative expenses for participants to shoulder, the suit alleges. Duke University provides education services, offering degrees in arts, humanities, social sciences, and engineering, serving students in North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 Email: dbryson@brysonpllc.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Alexandr Rudenco, Esq. Arlene Boruchowitz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay St., Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Emails: arudenco@milberg.com aboruchowitz@milberg.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Gabriel Mandler, Esq. Omer Kremer, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW 20900 NE 30th Ave Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Emails: scott@edelsberglaw.com gabriel@edelsberglaw.com omer@edelsberglaw.com ELECTROSTIM MEDICAL: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. AMA ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADVANTAGE MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, P.A., v. ELECTROSTIM MEDICAL SERVICES, INC. Case No. 3:24-cv-02992-GC-JBD (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Castner entered a judgment denying the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, because there is a genuine dispute of fact as to the breadth of Plaintiff's purpose in disclosing its fax number -- which is material to whether the fax was "related” to said purpose -- and because the Defendant's argument regarding the business relationship between the parties is unavailing as a matter of law, summary judgment in favor of Defendant is denied. On March 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed a one-count Class Action Complaint asserting violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Plaintiff defined the class as "All persons or entities sent one or more documents by facsimile transmission on or after March 13, 2020, encouraging them to contact [Defendant] about [electrostimulation] devices." On September 27, 2024, the Court granted Defendant's bifurcation request and ordered the parties to submit a discovery and briefing schedule “related to the narrow, targeted issue of the merits of the named plaintiff’s claim and Electrostim's defenses thereto.” Electrostim is a designer, manufacturer, and provider of non-invasive medical devices used to control pain, and muscle rehabilitation. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0lwD21 at no extra charge.[CC] ELSEVIER INC: Court Dismisses "Lyall" Securities Fraud Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Kip Lyall, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Elsevier Inc, RELX PLC, and Cell Press Inc, Defendants, Civil Action No. 24-cv-12022-PBS, Judge Patti B. Saris of the U.S. Dist. Ct. for the D. Mass. allowed the Defendants' motion to dismiss all claims on October 17, 2025. Plaintiff Kip Lyall worked at Defendant Cell Press Inc., a publisher of scientific journals, for almost a decade. Starting in 2021, Lyall raised concerns internally about what he viewed as greenwashing by Cell Press and its parent companies, Defendants Elsevier Inc. and RELX PLC. In particular, Lyall believed that some of Defendants' business practices conflicted with RELX's public pledges to reduce carbon emissions and fight climate change. Defendants pushed back against Lyall's criticisms, leading him to seek mental health treatment. After Lyall sought accommodations at work for his mental health conditions, Defendants terminated his employment. Lyall subsequently brought this action against Defendants alleging (1) securities fraud under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5; (2) disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12101 et seq., and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 151B; (3) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy; and (4) promissory estoppel. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendants argued that Lyall's claims of disability discrimination should be dismissed because he failed to file a timely charge with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and that his other claims did not allege a plausible entitlement to relief. RELX made a number of public climate-related pledges starting no later than 2021. That year, RELX signed the Climate Pledge and committed to the United Nations Net Zero and Race to Zero. In its 2022 annual report, RELX stated that it had signed the UN Global Compact, which includes various environmental principles. The report also specified that the company would work to further UNGC principles within RELX and in its supply chain. RELX's 2022 annual report also described sustainability-related efforts undertaken by Elsevier in particular. Lyall alleged that these pledges and public statements were greenwashing and that Defendants continued to engage in business activities inconsistent with achieving their professed climate-related goals. On March 8, 2021, Lyall purchased shares in RELX so that he had an avenue beyond his employment to push the company to improve its record on corporate social responsibility. Around the same time, he came to believe that Defendants' business activities supported fossil fuel companies and were therefore inconsistent with their climate and sustainability pledges. Lyall submitted an internal ethics complaint on this subject in April 2021 claiming that the company was making false or misleading statements about its climate pledges. Soon thereafter, Lyall founded the Responsible Growth Report Committee, a group of RELX, Elsevier, and Cell Press employees concerned about the companies' climate impact. The RGRC circulated a series of internal reports between April 2021 and April 2023. In these reports, the RGRC pointed out business practices that the group believed did not align with the companies' climate-related policies, marketing, and public statements. While these events were unfolding, Lyall sought mental health treatment for stress and anxiety related to his employment. His psychotherapist diagnosed him with adjustment disorder with anxiety and recommended he seek accommodations regarding work meetings, including notice of at least one business day and a limit of forty-five minutes per meeting. On May 30, 2023, Lyall requested these accommodations from his manager, who said she would share his request with HR. On June 7, 2023, Lyall received a letter terminating his employment effective June 9. An HR employee emailed Lyall stating that if he initiated a claim for medical leave prior to close of business on June 9, his termination would be delayed in order for AbsenceOne to evaluate his claim. Lyall's request for medical leave was approved. When his leave expired on August 8, 2023, he received a letter stating that his termination was effective that day. Lyall filed a charge of discrimination against Elsevier and Cell Press with the MCAD on either June 2 or June 3, 2024. The Court concluded that Lyall had not adequately pled the related elements of economic loss and loss causation. The element of loss causation refers to a causal connection between the material misrepresentation and the loss. A plaintiff must show that his economic loss was attributable to the revelation of the fraud and not the myriad other factors that affect a company's stock price. The Court found that Lyall failed to allege a cognizable theory of loss causation. RELX's shares are publicly traded, and Lyall stated in the complaint that he was relying on the fraud-on-the-market theory. The complaint, however, did not allege any drop in RELX's stock price, let alone one following a corrective disclosure. The only allegation Lyall made with regard to loss causation was that he paid artificially inflated prices for RELX stock and would not have purchased RELX stock at the prices he paid, or at all, if he had been aware that the market prices had been artificially and falsely inflated by Defendants' misleading statements. This is the theory of loss causation that Dura Pharmaceuticals rejected in the context of publicly traded shares like RELX's. The Court determined that Lyall's failure to adequately plead loss causation was fatal to his claim of securities fraud under section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. Defendants moved to dismiss Lyall's disability discrimination claims under the ADA and Chapter 151B on the basis that Lyall failed to file a timely MCAD charge. Both Title I of the ADA and Chapter 151B require that a plaintiff file an administrative charge before bringing suit. As relevant here, a plaintiff must file that charge within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice. If the plaintiff fails to do so, a court cannot entertain his claim. The Court found that the 300-day window for Lyall to file a charge relating to his termination began to run no later than June 8, 2023. The day before, Lyall submitted a request for medical leave and received a letter terminating his employment effective June 9. Whatever ambiguity may have arisen from the confluence of these two events was dispelled on June 8 when an HR employee emailed Lyall that his termination would be delayed in order for the benefit administrator to evaluate his claim and that he would be terminated at the latest after any approved leave expired. While Lyall's final day of employment was uncertain at that point, HR unambiguously notified him that he was being terminated. No reasonable person would have understood from the communications Lyall received that there was a chance Defendants would change their minds about his termination or find an alternative position for him. The Court concluded that Defendants decided to terminate Lyall in June 2023 and communicated as much to him at the time. Defendants carried out that decision on August 8. In other words, while the consequences of Lyall's termination became most painful on August 8, his termination claims accrued when Defendants unequivocally notified him in June 2023 that he was fired. Lyall's MCAD charge, filed more than 300 days later, was therefore untimely to challenge his termination. Having dismissed Lyall's federal-law claims, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy and promissory estoppel. Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss was allowed. The Court dismissed Count I (violation of the ADA), Count II (violation of Chapter 151B), and Count IV (securities fraud) with prejudice. The Court dismissed Count III (wrongful discharge in violation of public policy) and Count V (promissory estoppel) without prejudice. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CSLIAS from PacerMonitor.com ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Encompass Health Corporation (NYSE: EHC) resulting from allegations that Encompass Health may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Encompass Health 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=44051 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 15, 2025, The New York Times published an article entitled "Even Grave Errors at Rehab Hospitals Go Unpenalized and Undisclosed." The article stated that "[r]ehab hospitals that help people recover from major surgeries and injuries have become a highly lucrative slice of the health care business. But federal data and inspection reports show that some run by the dominant company, Encompass Health Corporation, [. . .] have had rare but serious incidents of patient harm and perform below average on two key safety measures tracked by Medicare." On this news, the price of Encompass Health stock fell 10.3% on July 15, 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. Contacts 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] ENGLANDER TRANSPORTATION: Light Seeks Conditional Collective Cert ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRAVIS LIGHT individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. ENGLANDER TRANSPORTATION, INC., and FLEETMASTER EXPRESS, INC., Case No. 7:25-cv-00102-MFU-CKM (W.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Conditionally certifying the following Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective: "All individuals who entered into a contract to work as delivery drivers for the Defendants in the past three years, and who were classified as independent contractors." 2. Authorizing the form and content of the Notice (Exhibit A) and Consent Form (Exhibit B). 3. Within 10 days of the Order, requiring the Defendants to post the Notice and Consent Form in a conspicuous place at each place of business. 4. Within 10 days of the order, requiring the Defendants to produce a list with the names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and last four digits of social security numbers, for all current or former employees within the class definition. 5. Within 10 days of Defendant's production of the list, authorizing Plaintiffs’ counsel to send a copy of the Notice and Consent Form all putative class members by U.S. mail and email. 6. Allowing recipients 60 days from the Notice sent date to return a signed Consent Form, authorizing electronic signatures, and deeming consent forms returned by US mail timely if postmarked within 60 days of the Notice sent date. The Plaintiff Light worked as a delivery driver for the Defendants between July 2023 and January 2025. Englander provides freight delivery services from either Virginia or Tennessee to the west coast. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N1ylRY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com - and - Jacob M. Small, Esq. J. MADISON PLC 1750 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 1500 McLean, VA 22102 Telephone: (703) 910-5062 Facsimile: (703) 910-5107 E-mail: jmsmall@jmadisonplc.com EURO FOODS INC: Curiel Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kenia Curiel, and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. Euro Foods, Inc. (d/b/a Citterio USA), Case No. 202509796 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for Middle District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 9, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01899-JKM. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Defendant did not pay her for all hours worked as required by the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. WINEBRAKE &SANTILLO 715 Twining Rd., Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19205 Phone: (215) 884-2491 Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jakob Williams, Esq. MILLER JOHNSON 45 Ottawa Ave. SW, Suite 1100 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Phone: (616) 831-1881 Email: williamsj@millerjohnson.com - and - Joshua Leadford, Esq. MILLER JOHNSON 500 Woodward Ave., 36th Floor Detroit, MI 48226 Phone: (313) 435-2329 Email: leadfordj@millerjohnson.com FIRST ADVANTAGE: McCutchen Sues Over Illegal Background Screening ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEMETRIUS MCCUTCHEN, on behalf himself and other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND SERVICES CORP., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01832-KM (M.D. Pa., September 30, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant produces background screening reports to third-party entities for employment purposes, and for a fee. The reports produced by the Defendant concerning Plaintiff and other Putative Class members contained items which were matters of public record and were likely to have an adverse effect on a consumer's ability to obtain employment. Further, the reports provided by Defendant contained information that would mislead the reader, says the suit. First Advantage Background Services Corp. is a consumer reporting agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine Cline, Esq. Jayson Watkins, Esq. Richard Parks, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (888) SIRI-LAW E-mail: ccline@sirillp.com jwatkins@sirillp.com rparks@sirillp.com FLAGSTAR BANK: Class Cert Bid in Gardner Suit Due June 23, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VERONICA GARDNER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, Case No. 2:20-cv-12061-GAD-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Gershwin A. Drain entered an amended scheduling order as follows: Facilitation: January of 2026 Class certification motion due: June 23, 2026 Certification response due: July 14, 2026 Certification reply due: Aug. 3, 2026 Class members discovery deadline: July 30, 2026 Expert Discovery deadline: Nov. 16, 2026 Final pretrial conference: Dec. 15, 2026 Jury trial date: Jan. 12, 2027 at 9:00 a.m. Flagstar is an American commercial bank. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TjP1JQ at no extra charge.[CC] GEICO INDEMNITY: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert SurReply -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOEL HARN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-01873-VMC (N.D. Ga.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file surreply to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. GEICO further requests the Court sanction Plaintiff's Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1927 because their intentionally misleading citations to inapplicable caselaw in an improper attempt to lower the Plaintiff's burden of proof is unreasonable and vexatious conduct that has unnecessarily multiplied these proceedings. The Plaintiff's reply alleges he has proven ascertainability and numerosity but fails to identify any evidence in either his motion or reply that could do so. The Plaintiff's Reply alleges he has proven predominance but fails to identify any evidence in either his Motion or Reply that could do so. The Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for class certification argues for the first time a Rule 23(b)(2) class, raises for the first time issues related to other Rule 23 elements, misleadingly cites inapplicable caselaw in an attempt to misconstrue the heavy Rule 23 burden of proof Plaintiff fails to satisfy, and misrepresents his own Motion. GEICO operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KFg4be at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Dan W. Goldfine, Esq. Jamie L. Halavais, Esq. Andrew J. Alvarado Kristen E. Hudson DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 1850 N. Central Avenue, Ste. 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 285-5000 E-mail: DGoldfine@dickinson-wright.com JHalavais@dickinson-wright.com AAlvarado@dickinsonwright.com KHudson@dickinson-wright.com - and - Shannon M. Sprinkle, Esq. Evan W. Elam, Esq. STITES & HARBISON PLLC 303 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30308 Telephone: (404) 739-8872 E-mail: ssprinkle@stites.com eelam@stites.com GEMINI EXPRESS: Fact Discovery in Blandon Suit Due Jan. 28, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Blandon v. Gemini Express Transport Corp and Henry Fung, Case No. 1:25-cv-04665-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Engelmayer entered a case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- All fact discovery: Jan. 28, 2026 -- Initial request for production Nov. 7, 2025 of documents to be served by: -- All expert discovery: March 14, 2026 Gemini specializes in a diverse range of freight solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6QE5ni at no extra charge.[CC] GKN DRIVELINE: Mebane Bid for Atty Fees & Costs Denied ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES MEBANE and ANGELA WORSHAM, v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-00892-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Catherine C. Eagles entered an order as follows: 1. The plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees and costs is denied. 2. 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 defendants have agreed was reasonable, and the plaintiffs support that request with appropriate evidence. 3. The defendant's motion to strike plaintiffs' attorney declarations and exhibits is granted in part and the Clerk shall strike Docs. 251 and 252, the time records. The motion to strike is otherwise denied. The prevailing party in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case is statutorily entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, to be paid by the employer-defendant. Such fees are also authorized under North Carolina law. The employer-defendant in this case, GKN Driveline North America, agreed to pay the two plaintiffs a total of $30,000 on their wage and hour claims, so plaintiffs James Mebane and Angela Worsham are the prevailing party. GKN also agreed to pay Mr. Mebane an additional $175,000 to resolve other claims arising out of his employment. The plaintiffs now move for an award of attorneys' fees of nearly $1,000,000 for their work and for reimbursement of over $55,000 in costs. Mr. Mebane and Ms. Worsham initiated this suit in October 2018, alleging that GKN followed wage and hour policies that violated the federal FLSA and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA"). Mr. Mebane also alleged that GKN had illegally discriminated against him and committed various state law torts against him during his employment. GKN manufactures automotive parts. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=15r314 at no extra charge.[CC] GREATER CINCINNATI: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $850,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that an $850,000 class action settlement with Greater Cincinnati Behavioral Health Services (GCBHS) offers cash payments and free credit monitoring and protection services to those impacted by a December 2023 data breach. The GCBHS class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on August 13, 2025 and covers nearly 62,000 United States residents whose private information may have been impacted in the GCBHS data breach, including all individuals who received notice of the incident from Greater Cincinnati Behavioral Health Services. The court-approved website for the GCBHS class action settlement can be found at https://GCBDataSettlement.com/. Greater Cincinnati Behavioral Health Services settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form have several options for reimbursement. Those who submit evidence of documented, out-of-pocket losses incurred due to the breach can receive a one-time cash payout of up to $5,000. Class members can also submit a claim form to receive a one-time cash payment of between roughly $60 and $120, with the final amount subject to increase or decrease based on the total number of valid claims filed. Both payment options can be sent to eligible class members via check or electronic payment, and class members can submit claims to receive both forms of reimbursement. In addition to the settlement cash payouts, GCBHS class members can also file a claim to receive one free year of three-bureau CyEx Identity Theft Monitoring. This CyEx Medical Shield covers credit monitoring and protection services and may be combined with any/all cash payments from the class action settlement. To submit a settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID found in their copy of the settlement notice. Consumers who believe they are a class member but did not receive a notice should contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and receive their login ID. GCBHS settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by December 11, 2025. The class action settlement website adds that class members who submit a valid claim will have 180 days to cash their check after the date of issuance before it expires. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the GCBHS settlement at a hearing on January 14, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The GCBHS class action lawsuit claimed that the provider failed to implement and maintain proper security measures to protect the private information of tens of thousands of patients. The data accessed during the breach included, but was not limited to, names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license or state identification numbers, health insurance information, the lawsuit claimed. [GN] GREEN MAGIC: Faces Rosales Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- CECILIA ROSALES, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. GREEN MAGIC EXCELLENT CLEANING CORP., JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-100, and INGRID ALMANZAR, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08094 (S.D.N.Y., September 30, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that, pursuant to the federal and state laws, she and similarly situated individuals are entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime premiums, (2) unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time-shaving, (3) unlawfully retained gratuities, (4) liquidated damages, (5) statutory penalties, and (6) attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a housekeeper for Defendants at the Moore Hotel in New York from December 2023 until July 11, 2024. Green Magic Excellent Cleaning Corp. provides cleaning and hospitality services to hotels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 HANOVER, VA: Court Decertifies Class in Hatcher ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER HATCHER, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, et al., V. COUNTY OF HANOVER, Case No. 3:23-cv-00325-MHL (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge entered a judgment granting the Defendant's motion to decertify. The Court will deny as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file first amended complaint to add a second class representative. Adding Sergeant Sutton as a class representative would not salvage Plaintiffs' class. As a sergeant, Sergeant Sutton was not dispatched to service calls. He testified that from May 2020 until his retirement, he was never dispatched to a call for service on his way to headquarters, the Court says. Thus, he would not adequately represent plaintiffs who marked on using 10-41 before their official shift started and were dispatched to calls for service. Further, even if Sergeant Sutton were added as a class representative, individual differences regarding Plaintiffs' job duties and whether they responded to calls while "marked on" but before the official start of their shifts would still predominate over questions common to the class. Because the class definition could allow identification of the class members by objective criteria, the Court concludes that the class meets the ascertainability requirement. On July 10, 2024, the Court certified a class action with the following class definition: "All current and former Hanover County Sheriffs Deputies employed by [the] Defendant[] at the rank of Lieutenant or below in patrol, investigations, or similar unit, who were issued take-home patrol cars and were required to "mark-on duty" prior to the start of their scheduled shift(s), during any time within the liability period since May 15, 2020." Christopher Hatcher was hired as a Hanover County Deputy Sheriff on Jan. 2, 2002. Hanover is a county in the U.S. state of Virginia. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qW7HNt at no extra charge.[CC] HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Marketing Emails ------------------------------------------------------------ Joe Sutton reports that plaintiff Sarah Perkins filed a class action lawsuit against Global Custom Commerce Inc. and Home Depot USA Inc. Why: Perkins claims the companies violated Washington state law by sending consumers emails advertising false discounts on window coverings. Where: The Blinds.com class action was filed in Washington state court. A Washington woman claims in a new class action lawsuit that Blinds.com, a company owned by Home Depot, sent consumers emails advertising false discounts on window coverings. Plaintiff Sarah Perkins claims Blinds.com sent her and other consumers emails with subject lines advertising discounts of up to 50% off window coverings. The emails often claimed that the discounts were only available for a limited time, Perkins says. Perkins claims the discounts were false and that Blinds.com's window coverings were almost always available at a discounted price. The emails were designed to create a false sense of urgency and pressure consumers into making a purchase, she alleges. Perkins claims Blinds.com's emails violated Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA), which prohibits the sending of commercial emails with false or misleading subject lines. She also claims the emails violated the state's Consumer Protection Act (CPA). Blinds.com always offers discounts, plaintiff claims Perkins claims she received dozens of emails from Blinds.com with false discounts between 2024 and 2025. The emails had subject lines such as "Hurry -- 40% off ends soon!," "Up to 50% off" and "Last chance to save up to 50% off," she says. The class action lawsuit claims Blinds.com's discounts were almost always available and that the company's sales never actually ended. For example, she says she received an email on June 27, 2025, with the subject line "Sarah, ends TONIGHT -- last chance for 50% off!" However, she says she received another email two days later advertising a new sale with discounts of up to 40% off. Perkins is looking to represent a class of Washington residents who received promotional emails from Blinds.com with subject lines advertising sales or discounts during the class period. She is suing for violations of CEMA and the CPA and is seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. Earlier in September, a consumer sued Interactive Memories Inc., doing business as Mixbook, alleging it misled customers by inflating regular prices and advertising steep, time-limited discounts that were not genuine. The plaintiff is represented by Cody Hoesly of Barg Singer Hoesly P.C. and Alexander E. Wolf and William J. Edelman of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC. The Blinds.com class action lawsuit is Perkins v. Global Custom Commerce Inc., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01750-MLP, in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County. [GN] HONEYWELL INT'L: Class Cert Hearing Set for July 17, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER LEVERMAN, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC ET AL, Case No. 2:25-cv-04768-WLH-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered a civil pretrial schedule and trial order as follows: Last date to hear motion to amend Aug. 29, 2025 pleadings / add parties: Last date to hear motion for class July 17, 2026 certification: Fact discovery cut-off: Sept. 28, 2026 Expert discovery cut-off: Oct. 26, 2026 Honeywell is a worldwide technology and manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WlfUFs at no extra charge.[CC] HOSPITALITY CENTER: Mera Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation --------------------------------------------------------------- Tatiana A. Mera, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. The Hospitality Center of Florida. Inc, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-61969 (S.D. Fla., September 30, 2025) seeks to recover monetary damages from the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours, but she was not paid for overtime hours as required by law, asserts the complaint. She did not agree with the lack of payment for overtime hours, and she complained to her superiors numerous times. As a result, on or about November 15, 2024, the Defendant fired Plaintiff. Plaintiff Mera was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt, full-time employee from approximately January 3, 2024 to November 15, 2024, or 45 weeks. The Plaintiff was designated to work at Nations Market's facilities in Hollywood, Florida. She had duties as a warehouse employee placing internal orders for distribution. The Hospitality Center of Florida. Inc. (from now on, The Hospitality Center, or Defendant) is a Florida Profit Corporation doing business in Miami, Broward County. The Company is a staffing agency providing personnel to the hospitality industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com HOST INTERNATIONAL: Wins Summary Judgment v. Frankenstein --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAN FRANKENSTEIN, v. HOST INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al, Case No. 8:20-cv-01100-MJM (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Matthew J. Maddox entered an order granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Thus, even if the challenged policy could be considered an adverse employment action, the record reflects legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for the policy, and Plaintiff fails to show that they are a mere pretext for discrimination. In sum, Plaintiff fails to present any evidence that Host took any action to discriminate against him with any discriminatory or retaliatory intent or purpose of interfering with his pension rights. The Plaintiff filed this civil action on behalf of himself and a putative class against his former employer, asserting violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The Plaintiff has worked as a bartender at Host's John Wayne Airport location since July 2011, and his compensation includes regular wages and tips, both in cash and via credit card payment. On January 2, 2014, Plaintiff increased his pre-tax election to 25%. Later, on February 10, 2019, Plaintiff again increased his election, this time to 75%. (screenshots detailing Plaintiff's deferral elections). Before Plaintiff increased his election to 25%, his paycheck completely covered his deferral elections. Once he increased his election to 25%, however, his payroll checks stopped completely covering his election, causing him to receive a "zero paycheck" from that point forward. Host provides food and beverage operations for travel venues, like airports. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7ga5AL at no extra charge.[CC] HP HOOD LLC: Purnell Suit Removed to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Reginald Eugene Purnell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HP HOOD, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company doing business in California; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV019289 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-cv-02922-DJC. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges the following causes of action: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; failure to timely pay final wages at termination; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and unfair business practices (California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sander van der Heide, Esq. Tashayla Billington, Esq. CDF LABOR LAW LLP 900 University Avenue, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 361-0991 Email: svanderheide@cdflaborlaw.com tbillington@cdflaborlaw.com HUMBOLDT PARK: Moore Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- KENDRA MOORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUMBOLDT PARK HEALTH, an Illinois nonprofit corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11866 (N.D. Ill., September 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant seeking to recover Plaintiff's unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant approximately October 2024 and is currently employed by Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly employee. Throughout her employment with Defendant, Defendant failed to properly calculate her premium pay, and other non-discretionary remuneration into the regular rate for proper overtime calculation. The failure to include this remuneration in overtime computations violates FLSA, because Defendant's hourly employees are working overtime without being paid the statutorily required rates, says the Plaintiff. Humboldt Park Health is a hospital in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7501 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com INTEGRIS HEALTH: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Suit for $30MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Integris Health Inc. is set to pay a $30 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit over a November 2023 data breach. The Integris Health class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on July 22, 2025, and covers nearly 2.4 million people, including 225,000 minors, in the United States whose personal and/or health information may have been accessed or acquired in the late-2023 data breach. The court-approved website for the Integris class action settlement can be found at https://www.IntegrisDataIncidentSettlement.com/. Integris settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form have several options for reimbursement. Those who submit evidence of documented, out-of-pocket losses incurred due to the breach can receive a one-time cash payout of up to $25,000. As another option, class members can choose to receive a pro-rated cash payment—estimated to be $100—from the expected leftover settlement fund, after the payment of attorneys' fees and costs, plaintiff service awards, and settlement administration costs. Both payment options will be issued via check to class members, court documents state. In addition to either cash payment option, all settlement class members are also entitled to submit a claim for three years of free credit monitoring and insurance services. To submit an Integris settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. Consumers who believe they are a class member but did not receive a class action settlement notice should contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and receive their login ID. Alternatively, a class member can download a PDF of the claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the address listed near the top of the form. Integris settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by December 22, 2025. The class action settlement documents add that class members who submit a valid claim will have 90 days to cash their check after the date of issuance before it expires. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Integris settlement at a hearing on December 16, 2025. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Integris Health class action lawsuit claimed that an unauthorized third party accessed the healthcare provider's website and accessed the personal information in Integris' possession in November 2023. Per the suit, the hacker demanded a $50 ransom from patients to protect their information from the dark web, and began sending extortion emails to patients over the next month that requested payment to delete their stolen data. The data accessed during the breach included, but was not limited to, names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, contact information, addresses, and health insurance information. [GN] IQ ELECTRICAL: Underpays Company Employees, Saula Says ------------------------------------------------------ EDISON RAUL DE LA CRUZ SAULA, JONATHAN ORLANDO HERRERA CAJAMARCA and LUIS ENRIQUE CHAVEZ NAVARRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs -against- IQ ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING CORP. and ILIVER QADHIMI, as individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08453 (S.D.N.Y., October 13, 2025) is a collective action complaint against the Defendants to recover damages for their egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiffs' employment at IQ ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING CORP. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves, and other employees similarly situated as authorized under the FLSA. The employees similarly situated are the Collective Class defined as: all persons who are or have been employed by the Defendants as electricians, laborers, or other similarly titled personnel with substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, who were performing the same sort of functions for Defendant, other than the executive and management positions, who have been subject to Defendant' common practices, policies, programs, procedures, protocols and plans including willfully failing and refusing to pay required minimum and overtime wage compensation. The complaint alleges that the Defendants employed approximately 20 or more employees within the relevant time period who were subjected to similar payment structures; the Defendants suffered and permitted Plaintiff and the Collective Class to work more than 40 hours per week without appropriate overtime compensation; the Defendants' unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated, and consistent; and the Defendants had knowledge that Plaintiff and the Collective Class performed work requiring overtime pay. The Defendants' conduct as set forth in this Complaint, was willful and in bad faith, and has caused significant damages to Plaintiff and the Collective Class, the complaint asserts. Plaintiff EDISON RAUL DE LA CRUZ SAULA, residing in Bronx, NY, was employed by IQ ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING CORP., as electrician, from around June 2024 until around May 2025. Plaintiff JONATHAN ORLANDO HERRERA CAJAMARCA residing in Brooklyn, NY was employed by IQ ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING CORP., as an electrician, from around April 2024 until around May 2025. Plaintiff LUIS ENRIQUE CHAVEZ NAVARRO residing at Bronx, NY was employed by IQ ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING CORP., as an electrician, from around April 2024 until around May 2025. Defendant IQ ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING CORP., is a New York domestic business corporation, organized under the laws of the State of New York with principal executive office at 417 5th Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10016 and service of process address at 1 Gail Place, Secaucus, New Jersey 07094. Defendant ILIVER QADHIMI owns and operates IQ ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING CORP.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Denies Palladino Reconsideration Motion ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as John Palladino, Garib Karapetyan, Steve Palladino, and John Nypl, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-1215 (BMC) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Brian M. Cogan of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied the Plaintiffs' second motion for reconsideration. The Plaintiffs, a putative class of California cardholders, brought this state antitrust case under California law alleging that the Defendants, a group of merchant banks and credit card networks, illegally conspired to charge the Plaintiffs inflated credit card transaction fees in violation of California's Cartwright Act. The case was originally assigned to Chief Judge Margo K. Brodie as part of the multi-district litigation, In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, 05-md-01720. Chief Judge Brodie reassigned the MDL, including this case, to Judge Cogan on September 5, 2025. The Plaintiffs brought an action in California state court under California's antitrust law, the Cartwright Act, against the Defendants. The Defendants removed the action to federal court, and it was then transferred to the Court for consolidation with the MDL. In February 2024, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Marutollo, who issued a report and recommendation dismissing the Plaintiffs' Cartwright Act claim, because (1) under Associated General Contractors v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519 (1983), the Plaintiffs, as indirect purchasers, lacked antitrust standing; and (2) the Plaintiffs did not have antitrust standing as direct joint purchasers because cardholders did not directly pay interchange fees. Chief Judge Brodie adopted Magistrate Judge Marutollo's report and recommendation on December 30, 2024. The Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the Court's December 2024 decision under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and Local Civil Rule 6.3, requesting leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, and arguing that the Court had overlooked the Plaintiffs' arguments that they participated in the relevant market where anticompetitive behavior occurred. Chief Judge Brodie issued a decision on May 12, 2025, denying the Plaintiffs' motion and request for leave to amend. The Court adhered to its prior holding that the Plaintiffs had described separate markets, one where the alleged horizontal agreements that eradicate competition occurs, and another where cardholders engage in transactions, and that the Plaintiffs had only participated in the latter. On June 10, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the Court's May 12 Decision. At the same time, they filed the instant motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b). Specifically, the Plaintiffs sought reconsideration on the grounds that (1) the Court erred when it dismissed the Plaintiffs' argument that they sufficiently alleged market participation under California's Cartwright Act; (2) the Court erred when it denied the Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend; and (3) the Court erred when it denied the Plaintiffs' request for an oral hearing, which they claim is mandated by the Fifth Amendment. The court noted that the Defendants disputed the Court's jurisdiction to hear the case because the Plaintiffs did not timely file their motion within the 28 days prescribed under Rule 59, and the Plaintiffs simultaneously filed a notice of appeal. The Court found that to the extent the Plaintiffs brought their motion under Rule 59(e), their motion was untimely. The Court issued its original decision denying the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on May 12, 2025. The Plaintiffs filed their Rule 59(e) motion on June 10, 2025, 29 days after the original decision, and one day over the 28-day deadline mandated by Rule 59(e). Because the motion was untimely, the Court could not consider it under Rule 59(e). Nonetheless, the Court found it could consider an untimely Rule 59(e) motion under Rule 60(b) instead. The Court explained that the Plaintiffs' Rule 60(b)(1) motion was timely. The Plaintiffs had 30 days from the Court's May 12 decision to file an appeal. Therefore, the Plaintiffs also had 30 days from the decision to file their Rule 60(b)(1) motion. The Court noted that it was equally well-established that the court may deny the post-judgment motion notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal. Accordingly, the Court found it had jurisdiction to consider the Plaintiffs' motion. Regarding the Plaintiffs' market participation argument, the Court held that the Plaintiffs first argued that the Court misapplied Salveson v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 663 F. App'x 71, 75 (2d Cir. 2016). The Court found the Plaintiffs' argument unavailing, because it conflated facts with legal conclusions, the latter of which the Court is not bound to accept as true. The Court explained that whether or not the plaintiffs in Salveson III paid inflated prices for goods is a legal conclusion, as is the Plaintiffs' assertion that the merchants were co-conspirators with the card networks. The Court concluded that based on the facts of the transaction between cardholders and defendant networks and merchant banks alleged by the Plaintiffs, the Court was unable to determine that the Plaintiffs had participated in the relevant market for purposes of Cartwright Act standing. The Court found that the Plaintiffs again asserted that the exception is set out in Lorenzo v. Qualcomm, 603 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (S.D. Cal. 2009), and that Lorenzo was a Cartwright Act case. The Court explained that even at this late stage, the Plaintiffs still had not explained how the target exception from the Clayton Act applies to Cartwright Act claims. Regarding leave to amend, the Court held that it did not abuse its discretion when it denied the Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend. The Court concluded that allowing the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint would be futile, because the Plaintiffs did not allege cardholder participation in the market where the anticompetitive conduct occurs. Therefore, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uxOe1D from PacerMonitor.com KENT MARTIN: Burch Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIJAH BURCH on behalf of himself and all similarly situated former and current pre-trial detainees housed at the Coles County Jail, v. KENT MARTIN, in his individual and official capacity as the COLES COUNTY SHERIFF, Case No. 1:25-cv-01068-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the time until Oct. 24, 2025, to file a response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) & (b)(3) and appointment of class counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(G). Counsel for the Defendants has diligently been reviewing and analyzing the Plaintiff's motion and its exhibits, however, due to the voluminous documents, the undersigned needs additional time to review and prepare an appropriate Response and would therefore request a three-week extension to file a response to the Plaintiff's motion. On Sept. 19, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. The Defendants include LT. KARI BEADLES, Corrections Supervisor of the Coles County Jail, in her individual capacity, OFFICER BENNER, in their individual capacity as a Coles County Sheriff's Deputy, LOGAN BROWN, in his individual capacity as a Coles County Sheriff's Deputy, OFFICER BUTLER, in their individual capacity as a Coles County Sheriff's Deputy, KYLE CHILDRESS, in his individual capacity as a Coles County Sheriff's Deputy, BUDDY LE COE, in his individual capacity as a Coles County Sheriff's Deputy, CHASE DUNNE, in his individual capacity as a Coles County Sheriff's Deputy, DERRICK FINNEY, in his individual capacity as a Coles County Sheriff's Deputy, JAMEY FLYNN, in his individual capacity as a Coles County Sheriff's Deputy, NICOLE KATZ, in her individual capacity as a Coles County Sheriff's Deputy, OFFICER KASTLE, in their individual capacity as a Coles County Sheriff's Deputy, ALEXANDER KERSTEN, in his individual capacity as a Coles County Sheriff's Deputy, THADDEUS LANG, in his individual capacity as a Coles County Sheriff's Deputy, OFFICER LYL, in their individual capacity as a Coles County Sheriff's Deputy, JOSHUA MILLER, in his individual capacity as a Coles County Sheriff's Deputy, CADEN PRICE, in their individual capacity as a Coles County Sheriff's Deputy, OFFICER RENO, in their individual capacity as a Coles County Sheriff's Deputy, RYAN SHEPERD, in his individual capacity as a Coles County Sheriff's Deputy, KRISTINA SOKOLINSKI (BAXTER), in her individual capacity as a Coles County Sheriff's Deputy, MACIE WADDILL, in her individual capacity as a Coles County Sheriff's Deputy, OFFICER WILSON, in their individual capacity as a Coles County Sheriff's Deputy, and THE COUNTY OF COLES, ILLINOIS, an Illinois municipal corporation, A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d81yRG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Devlin J. Schoop, Esq. LADUZINSKY & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 216 S. Jefferson St., Suite 301 Chicago, IL 60601-5743 E-mail: dschoop@laduzinsky.com - and - Judith M. Redwood, Esq. REDWOOD LAW OFFICE St. Joseph, IL 61873 E-mail: Redwoodlaw42@hotmail.co The Defendants are represented by: Brian M. Smith, Esq. Kathryn Johnson-Monfort, Esq. HEYL, ROYSTER, VOELKER & ALLEN Suite 505, 301 N. Neil Street Champaign, IL 61820 Telephone: (217) 344-0060 E-mail: bsmith@heylroyster.com kjohnsonmonfort@heylroyster.com KERBER ECK: Agrees to Settle 2023 Data Breach Suit for $1.4MM ------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that tax and accounting firm Kerber, Eck & Braeckel (KEB) will pay $1.4 million to settle a class action lawsuit over a February 2023 data breach that may have exposed the personal and health data of approximately 103,645 people. The Kerber, Eck & Braeckel class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on July 28, 2025 and covers all U.S. residents whose private information was identified by KEB as having been actually or potentially compromised, accessed or otherwise impacted in the February 2023 data breach. The court-approved website for the KEB settlement can be found at KEBDataSettlement.com. According to the class action settlement website, KEB settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form can receive credit monitoring, up to $10,000 in reimbursement for economic losses related to the data breach and a pro rata (equal share) payment from the remainder of the $1.4 million settlement fund. The court estimates that the individual payout amount for each eligible class member will be about $50. The credit monitoring offered by the KEB settlement includes two years of three-bureau credit monitoring services. Class members seeking to claim this benefit must provide a valid email address to which an enrollment code for the service can be sent, the settlement site relays. Class members can only claim reimbursement for data breach-related losses if the losses have not already been reimbursed by another source. Class members must also submit reasonable documentation for each loss they seek to claim. According to court documents, claimable losses may include: -- Professional fees, including attorneys' fees, accountants' fees and fees for credit repair services; -- Credit monitoring costs incurred between January 27, 2023 and the date the claim is submitted; -- Losses related to fraud or identity theft; -- Costs associated with freezing or unfreezing credit with any credit reporting agency; and -- Miscellaneous expenses such as postage, notary, mileage, copying, fax and long-distance telephone charges. To submit a claim form online, class members can visit this page of the settlement website and log in with the unique notice ID and PIN found in their copy of the settlement notice. All claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by November 25, 2025. Kerber, Eck & Braeckel has also agreed, as part of the settlement, to implement additional information security measures to help prevent and combat potential future cyberattacks. A hearing is scheduled for January 7, 2025 to determine whether the settlement will receive final court approval. Settlement benefits will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Kerber, Eck & Braeckel class action lawsuit claimed that the tax and accounting firm was negligent in its cybersecurity measures, allowing a data breach to occur between January 27 and February 2, 2023 that may have compromised the personal and health data of roughly 103,645 people. [GN] KNOX COUNTY, IL: Second Amended Bid for Class Certification Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.B.H., by his next friend Debra Medlock, et al., v. KNOX COUNTY, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-04096-CRL (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Colleen Lawless entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' second amended motion for class certification is granted. The class is defined as: "All children who are currently, or in the future will be, detained in the Mary Davis Home." Accordingly, this class is certified. The Plaintiffs J.B.H., A.M., and J.L.S. are appointed as representative Plaintiffs of the class. The Plaintiffs' current counsel are appointed as counsel for the class. 2. The Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is granted. 3. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3626(a)(2), this preliminary injunction expires 90 days from the entry of this Order. This matter is scheduled for a status conference on Jan. 6, 2026 at 10:00 A.M. by video to discuss the need for the entry of a successive preliminary injunction. The Clerk is directed to file video conferencing instructions. MDH allegedly fails to provide adequate mental health care for detainees in solitary confinement, which is especially harmful to detainees with mental health conditions and on suicide watch A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ahVcTQ at no extra charge.[CC] LINKEDIN CORP: Court Tosses J.P. Suit with Leave to Amend --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.P., v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Case No. 5:24-cv-07586-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Davila entered an order granting Meta's motion to sever; and granting remaining motions to dismiss with leave to amend. -- The Court grants Meta's motion to sever J.S.'s claims against it in Case No. 24-cv 07374. J.S.'s claims against Meta shall be related to and consolidated with In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litig., Case No. 3:22-cv-03580-WHO (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2022). J.S.'s claims against LinkedIn and Spring Fertility remain before this Court. -- The Court grants LinkedIn and Spring Fertility's motions to dismiss all claims in Case No. 24-cv-07374 with leave to amend. -- As for the remaining three cases—Case Nos. 24-cv-06842, 24-cv- 07399, and 24-cv 07586—the Court grants LinkedIn's motions to dismiss the CIPA section 631 claims with leave to amend and denies LinkedIn's motions to dismiss the CIPA section 632 and California constitutional privacy claims. Given the obvious and substantial overlaps in facts and law, the Court sets a status conference for October 23, 2025, to discuss consolidating the cases discussed in this Order. The parties shall file a Joint Status Report indicating their positions on consolidation and a Proposed Order of Consolidation by 4:00 p.m. on October 15, 2025. The Court will set an amended pleadings deadline following the status conference. In sum, the Plaintiffs' allegations do not satisfy the "read or attempting to read" or the "in transit" requirement of CIPA section 631's second clause. The Plaintiffs L.B. and V.R. also fail to meet the "sent or received within California" element. Consequently, the Court grants LinkedIn's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims under Clause Two of CIPA section 631 with leave to amend. LinkedIn operates as a social networking web site. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=21pi8s at no extra charge.[CC] LINKEDIN CORP: Court Tosses L.B. Suit with Leave to Amend --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.B., v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Case No. 5:24-cv-06832-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Davila entered an order granting Meta's motion to sever; and granting remaining motions to dismiss with leave to amend. -- The Court grants Meta's motion to sever J.S.'s claims against it in Case No. 24-cv 07374. J.S.'s claims against Meta shall be related to and consolidated with In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litig., Case No. 3:22-cv-03580-WHO (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2022). J.S.'s claims against LinkedIn and Spring Fertility remain before this Court. -- The Court grants LinkedIn and Spring Fertility's motions to dismiss all claims in Case No. 24-cv-07374 with leave to amend. -- As for the remaining three cases—Case Nos. 24-cv-06842, 24-cv- 07399, and 24-cv 07586—the Court grants LinkedIn's motions to dismiss the CIPA section 631 claims with leave to amend and denies LinkedIn's motions to dismiss the CIPA section 632 and California constitutional privacy claims. Given the obvious and substantial overlaps in facts and law, the Court sets a status conference for October 23, 2025, to discuss consolidating the cases discussed in this Order. The parties shall file a Joint Status Report indicating their positions on consolidation and a Proposed Order of Consolidation by 4:00 p.m. on October 15, 2025. The Court will set an amended pleadings deadline following the status conference. In sum, the Plaintiffs' allegations do not satisfy the "read or attempting to read" or the "in transit" requirement of CIPA section 631's second clause. The Plaintiffs L.B. and V.R. also fail to meet the "sent or received within California" element. Consequently, the Court grants LinkedIn's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims under Clause Two of CIPA section 631 with leave to amend. LinkedIn operates as a social networking web site. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XJuEFY at no extra charge.[CC] LINKEDIN CORP: V.R. Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as V.R., v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Case No. 5:24-cv-07399-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Davila entered an order granting Meta's motion to sever; and granting remaining motions to dismiss with leave to amend. -- The Court grants Meta's motion to sever J.S.'s claims against it in Case No. 24-cv 07374. J.S.'s claims against Meta shall be related to and consolidated with In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litig., Case No. 3:22-cv-03580-WHO (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2022). J.S.'s claims against LinkedIn and Spring Fertility remain before this Court. -- The Court grants LinkedIn and Spring Fertility's motions to dismiss all claims in Case No. 24-cv-07374 with leave to amend. -- As for the remaining three cases—Case Nos. 24-cv-06842, 24-cv- 07399, and 24-cv 07586—the Court grants LinkedIn's motions to dismiss the CIPA section 631 claims with leave to amend and denies LinkedIn's motions to dismiss the CIPA section 632 and California constitutional privacy claims. Given the obvious and substantial overlaps in facts and law, the Court sets a status conference for October 23, 2025, to discuss consolidating the cases discussed in this Order. The parties shall file a Joint Status Report indicating their positions on consolidation and a Proposed Order of Consolidation by 4:00 p.m. on October 15, 2025. The Court will set an amended pleadings deadline following the status conference. In sum, the Plaintiffs' allegations do not satisfy the "read or attempting to read" or the "in transit" requirement of CIPA section 631's second clause. The Plaintiffs L.B. and V.R. also fail to meet the "sent or received within California" element. Consequently, the Court grants LinkedIn's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims under Clause Two of CIPA section 631 with leave to amend. LinkedIn operates as a social networking web site. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U8sS8X at no extra charge.[CC] MANN & COMPANY: Faces Shabazz Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- BAMLAWCA reports that workers in California continue to bring wage and hour claims against employers who fail to meet the state's strict labor standards. One recent case highlights the impact on service industry employees when businesses fail to comply with wage laws. Case: Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc. (Wingstop) Court: Butte County Superior Court Case No.: 22CV02669 The Plaintiff: Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc. (Wingstop) As a former Wingstop employee, Jamal Shabazz filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and similarly situated workers. He alleges the company failed to pay wages properly and follow California's labor code requirements. The Defendant: Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc. (Wingstop) The defendant, Mann & Company, Inc., operates Wingstop franchise locations in California. As the employer, the defendant was responsible for ensuring Wingstop policies and procedures complied with wage and hour laws, including overtime, minimum wage, and break requirements. A History of the Case: Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc. (Wingstop) The complaint alleges that Mann & Company violated California's labor code in multiple ways. Claims include unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, failure to provide required meal periods and rest breaks, and inaccurate wage statements. Shabazz filed on behalf of a proposed class of Wingstop employees in California, seeking back pay, statutory penalties, and other damages. The case remains pending in Butte County Superior Court. The Main Question Being Considered: Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc. (Wingstop) Did Wingstop's practices deny employees legally required wages, breaks, and accurate wage statements under California labor law? Why This Case Matters: Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc. (Wingstop) Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc. (Wingstop) is a good example of how California wage and hour violations impact workers in the hospitality and restaurant industries. Employers of all sizes (even smaller franchise employers) are required to be aware of and comply with labor law standards. Workers denied breaks, overtime, or accurate pay stubs may be entitled to significant recovery through class action litigation. FAQ: Jamal Shabazz v. Mann & Company, Inc. (Wingstop) Q: What is this case about? A: The case alleges that Wingstop violated California labor laws by failing to pay wages properly and provide meal and rest breaks. Q: What court is handling the case? A: The case is pending in Butte County Superior Court. Q: Who filed the wage and hour class action? A: Jamal Shabazz is the plaintiff in the case. A former Wingstop employee, he filed on behalf of himself and other affected workers. Q: What violations are alleged? A: Claims include unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, missed meal periods or rest breaks, and inaccurate wage statements. Q: Why is this case important for California's workforce? A: This wage and hour case underscores that all employers, no matter how large or small, are required to comply with California's strict wage and hour protections. Take Action to Protect Your Rights as a California Worker If you believe your employer failed to pay proper wages, denied you meal or rest breaks, or issued inaccurate wage statements, you may have legal claims under California labor law. The attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP have decades of experience representing employees in wage and hour class actions. Contact our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago to discuss your case. [GN] MARTINEZ REFINING: Piscitelli Loses Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Piscitelli, et al., v. Martinez Refining Company LLC, the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr entered an order denying motion for class certification. Accordingly, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motions to seal. The Plaintiff is directed to file an unredacted version of the motion for class certification and Exhibit 31, for which the proposed sealing has been denied, as well as Exhibit 28 in support of his motion, for which a motion to seal was never filed, within seven days of this order. The Court further sets a case management conference in this case and all related cases on Oct. 28, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. The hearing will be held by Public Zoom Webinar. All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/hsg. The Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing that the requirements of Rule 23 are met here, and the Court therefore denies the motion for class certification. Because the documents divulge sensitive information unrelated to the public's understanding of the judicial proceedings in this action, the Court finds that there are compelling reasons to seal them. The Court therefore grants the motions to seal as to Exhibits 29 and 30, and the portions of Exhibit 26 that Defendant identified. The Plaintiff now seeks to represent a class defined as: "All owner-occupants and renters of residential property located, in whole or in part, within one mile (1.0) Defendant's Refinery, located at 3485 Pacheco Boulevard, Martinez California, from Aug. 16, 2020 to the Present." The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant emits large quantities of particulate matter as a result of its operations. Specifically, the Plaintiff contends that the refinery's fluidized catalytic cracking units ("FCCU") are a major source of its particulate emissions, including petroleum coke and spent catalyst, byproducts of the oil refining process. The Defendant owns and operates an oil refinery in Martinez, California, that processes crude oil into gasoline and jet fuel. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vtn1kO at no extra charge.[CC] MCDONALD'S USA: Federal District Court Dismisses PUMP Act Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Laurel Kalser, writing for HRDive, reports that two female managers employed by separate McDonald's franchisees can't bring individual claims or a proposed collective action against the company for allegedly violating the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act because they failed to sufficiently allege the violations were due to corporate actions by McDonald's rather than because of independent decisions by the franchise owners they worked for, a federal district court held Oct. 7 in Faber v. McDonald's USA, LLC. Per court records, one plaintiff briefly worked at a McDonald's location in Haysville, Kansas, while the other plaintiff works at a location in Clinton, New York, both owned and operated by different franchisees. They alleged that after they gave birth, they requested -- and the franchisees' respective management agreed to provide -- adequate breaks and a suitable place for them to pump milk during work, but this didn't happen. The women brought a proposed collective action against the franchisees, McDonald's USA and 100 other unnamed U.S. franchisees. The court said they arguably stated a cause of action against their franchisee businesses; it transferred those claims to the states where they worked. But it dismissed the claims against McDonald's USA and the unnamed franchisees because they were separate entities, the plaintiffs didn't work for them, and the lawsuit failed to tie them to the alleged violations. Dive Insight: Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, most employers must provide nursing employees, up to one year after their child's birth, with a private, functional space for pumping milk. The space must be shielded from view, free from intrusion, and available as needed, according to a U.S. Department of Labor guidance. Importantly, the space can't be a bathroom. Employers must also provide nursing employees with reasonable break time each time the employee needs to pump at work, the guidance says. The PUMP Act expands these rights to include agricultural workers, nurses, teachers, truck and taxi drivers, home care workers and managers, another DOL document explains. Notably, the PUMP Act also allows nursing employees to seek monetary remedies in court if they didn't receive reasonable break time, the Miller Shah law firm pointed out in a June post. Since the act became law in December 2022, numerous lawsuits, including collective actions, have been filed to redress alleged violations. For instance, in September 2023, two Dollar General employees filed a collective action against the discount chain for allegedly refusing to give them breaks or private places to pump milk at work, forcing them instead to use "unsanitary" stockrooms or restrooms. In the MBM and Mac-Clark lawsuit, the court said the claims against McDonald's USA and the unnamed franchisees had to be dismissed for a couple of reasons. First, there were no allegations the plaintiffs were directly employed by McDonald's or had an employment relationship with the franchisees. Second, the lawsuit failed to implicate McDonald's as a joint employer: There were no allegations the company knew of the plaintiffs' needs for adequate breaks and suitable places to pump and failed to address their concerns. To the extent the plaintiffs relied on the franchise agreement, it was silent as to lactation accommodations, and there were no allegations McDonald's had a companywide policy denying them, the court said. [GN] MCLAREN HEALTH: Gailey Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAWN GAILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MCLAREN HEALTH CARE, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01218 (W.D. Mich., October 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between July 17, 2024 and August 3, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. McLaren Health Care is an operator of hospitals and health facilities across Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew P. Abood, Esq. Jeffrey Lance Abood, Esq. Daniel Jude Noble, Esq. ABOOD LAW FIRM 246 E. Saginaw Street, Suite 100 East Lansing, MI 48823 Telephone: (517) 332-5900 Facsimile: (517) 332-0700 Email: daniel@aboodlaw.com jeff@aboodlaw.com discovery@aboodlaw.com - and - Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 578-5582 Email: mboyle@bgandg.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. 60 East 42n Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com MDL 3035: CarMichael Files Second Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARMICHAEL, JR. et al v. HARRIS et al. (RE: AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION), Case No. 1:22-cv-01129-STA-jay(W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification for the second time pursuant to the Court's order denying the first motion to certify the class without prejudice with the ability to file a renewed motion. The Plaintiffs move the Court to increase the page limit for the following: (1) the memorandum in support of Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for Class Certification, (2) the memoranda in support of Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment, and (3) the statements of material facts in support of Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs initially moved to certify the class on May 7, 2025. On the same day that the Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion, the Sixth Circuit issued its en banc decision in Speerly v. General Motors, LLC, 143 F.4th 306 (6th Cir. 2025). Speerly announced the Sixth Circuit's newest articulation of what is required for class certification under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3), specifically regarding commonality and predominance -- an element-by-element analysis of each claim to ensure that at least one element is affected by a common legal or factual question that is susceptible to common proof. The CarMichael suit is consolidated in AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION, MDL 3035. These putative class actions present common factual questions arising from the allegation that the AME Church, senior Church officials, and financial companies contracted to administer the Church retirement plan were negligent in managing the plan and breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants, resulting in substantial losses to the plan that were discovered in 2021. All actions involve overlapping putative classes of participating employees, and investigations that will affect all actions reportedly are ongoing. A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pRB2mJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew E. Lee, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: 855-496-7500 E-mail: mlee@leesegui.com - and - Gregorio A. Francis, Esq. OSBORNE & FRANCIS LAW FIRM, PLLC 2707 E. Jefferson Street Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (561) 293-2600 Facsimile: (561) 923-8100 E-mail: gfrancis@realtoughlawyers.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Susan L. Meter, Esq. KANTOR & KANTOR LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street Northridge, CA 91324 Telephone: (818) 886-2525 Facsimile: (818) 350-6274 E-mail: smeter@kantorlaw.net - and - Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 222 2nd Ave S Nashville, TN 37210 Telephone: (615) 313-9000 Facsimile: (615) 313-9965 E-mail: kbyrd@lchb.com - and - Dhamian Blue, Esq. BLUE LLP P.O. Box 1730 Raleigh, NC 27602 Telephone: (919) 833-1931 Facsimile: (919) 833-8009 E-mail: dab@bluellp.com - and - Richard Schulte, Esq. WRIGHT & SCHULTE LLC 865 S. Dixie Dr Vandalia, OH 45377 Telephone: (937) 435-9999 Facsimile: (937) 435-7511 E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com - and - Julie Nepveu, Esq. AARP Foundation 601 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20049 Telephone: (202) 434-2075 Facsimile: (202) 434-6424 E-mail: jnepveu@aarp.org MDL 3035: Ewing Files Second Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ewing v. Newport Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02136 (W.D. Tenn., Oct. 1, 2025), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification for the second time pursuant to the Court's order denying the first motion to certify the class without prejudice with the ability to file a renewed motion. The Plaintiffs move the Court to increase the page limit for the following: (1) the memorandum in support of Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for Class Certification, (2) the memoranda in support of Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment, and (3) the statements of material facts in support of Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs initially moved to certify the class on May 7, 2025. On the same day that the Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion, the Sixth Circuit issued its en banc decision in Speerly v. General Motors, LLC, 143 F.4th 306 (6th Cir. 2025). Speerly announced the Sixth Circuit's newest articulation of what is required for class certification under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3), specifically regarding commonality and predominance -- an element-by-element analysis of each claim to ensure that at least one element is affected by a common legal or factual question that is susceptible to common proof. The Ewing suit is consolidated in AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION, MDL 3035. These putative class actions present common factual questions arising from the allegation that the AME Church, senior Church officials, and financial companies contracted to administer the Church retirement plan were negligent in managing the plan and breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants, resulting in substantial losses to the plan that were discovered in 2021. All actions involve overlapping putative classes of participating employees, and investigations that will affect all actions reportedly are ongoing. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=budz57 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew E. Lee, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: 855-496-7500 E-mail: mlee@leesegui.com - and - Gregorio A. Francis, Esq. OSBORNE & FRANCIS LAW FIRM, PLLC 2707 E. Jefferson Street Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (561) 293-2600 Facsimile: (561) 923-8100 E-mail: gfrancis@realtoughlawyers.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Susan L. Meter, Esq. KANTOR & KANTOR LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street Northridge, CA 91324 Telephone: (818) 886-2525 Facsimile: (818) 350-6274 E-mail: smeter@kantorlaw.net - and - Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 222 2nd Ave S Nashville, TN 37210 Telephone: (615) 313-9000 Facsimile: (615) 313-9965 E-mail: kbyrd@lchb.com - and - Dhamian Blue, Esq. BLUE LLP P.O. Box 1730 Raleigh, NC 27602 Telephone: (919) 833-1931 Facsimile: (919) 833-8009 E-mail: dab@bluellp.com - and - Richard Schulte, Esq. WRIGHT & SCHULTE LLC 865 S. Dixie Dr Vandalia, OH 45377 Telephone: (937) 435-9999 Facsimile: (937) 435-7511 E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com - and - Julie Nepveu, Esq. AARP Foundation 601 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20049 Telephone: (202) 434-2075 Facsimile: (202) 434-6424 E-mail: jnepveu@aarp.org MDL 3035: Jackson Files Second Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jackson v. Newport Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02174 (W.D. Tenn., Oct. 1, 2025), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification for the second time pursuant to the Court's order denying the first motion to certify the class without prejudice with the ability to file a renewed motion. The Plaintiffs move the Court to increase the page limit for the following: (1) the memorandum in support of Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for Class Certification, (2) the memoranda in support of Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment, and (3) the statements of material facts in support of Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs initially moved to certify the class on May 7, 2025. On the same day that the Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion, the Sixth Circuit issued its en banc decision in Speerly v. General Motors, LLC, 143 F.4th 306 (6th Cir. 2025). Speerly announced the Sixth Circuit's newest articulation of what is required for class certification under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3), specifically regarding commonality and predominance -- an element-by-element analysis of each claim to ensure that at least one element is affected by a common legal or factual question that is susceptible to common proof. The Jackson suit is consolidated in AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION, MDL 3035. These putative class actions present common factual questions arising from the allegation that the AME Church, senior Church officials, and financial companies contracted to administer the Church retirement plan were negligent in managing the plan and breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants, resulting in substantial losses to the plan that were discovered in 2021. All actions involve overlapping putative classes of participating employees, and investigations that will affect all actions reportedly are ongoing. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UkAXlg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew E. Lee, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: 855-496-7500 E-mail: mlee@leesegui.com - and - Gregorio A. Francis, Esq. OSBORNE & FRANCIS LAW FIRM, PLLC 2707 E. Jefferson Street Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (561) 293-2600 Facsimile: (561) 923-8100 E-mail: gfrancis@realtoughlawyers.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Susan L. Meter, Esq. KANTOR & KANTOR LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street Northridge, CA 91324 Telephone: (818) 886-2525 Facsimile: (818) 350-6274 E-mail: smeter@kantorlaw.net - and - Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 222 2nd Ave S Nashville, TN 37210 Telephone: (615) 313-9000 Facsimile: (615) 313-9965 E-mail: kbyrd@lchb.com - and - Dhamian Blue, Esq. BLUE LLP P.O. Box 1730 Raleigh, NC 27602 Telephone: (919) 833-1931 Facsimile: (919) 833-8009 E-mail: dab@bluellp.com - and - Richard Schulte, Esq. WRIGHT & SCHULTE LLC 865 S. Dixie Dr Vandalia, OH 45377 Telephone: (937) 435-9999 Facsimile: (937) 435-7511 E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com - and - Julie Nepveu, Esq. AARP Foundation 601 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20049 Telephone: (202) 434-2075 Facsimile: (202) 434-6424 E-mail: jnepveu@aarp.org MDL 3035: Russ Files Second Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Russ, et al., v. Newport Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01129 (W.D. Tenn., Oct. 21, 2025), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification for the second time pursuant to the Court's order denying the first motion to certify the class without prejudice with the ability to file a renewed motion. The Plaintiffs move the Court to increase the page limit for the following: (1) the memorandum in support of Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for Class Certification, (2) the memoranda in support of Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment, and (3) the statements of material facts in support of Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs initially moved to certify the class on May 7, 2025. On the same day that the Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion, the Sixth Circuit issued its en banc decision in Speerly v. General Motors, LLC, 143 F.4th 306 (6th Cir. 2025). Speerly announced the Sixth Circuit's newest articulation of what is required for class certification under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3), specifically regarding commonality and predominance -- an element-by-element analysis of each claim to ensure that at least one element is affected by a common legal or factual question that is susceptible to common proof. The Russ suit is consolidated in AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION, MDL 3035. These putative class actions present common factual questions arising from the allegation that the AME Church, senior Church officials, and financial companies contracted to administer the Church retirement plan were negligent in managing the plan and breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants, resulting in substantial losses to the plan that were discovered in 2021. All actions involve overlapping putative classes of participating employees, and investigations that will affect all actions reportedly are ongoing. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8BsK0Q at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew E. Lee, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: 855-496-7500 E-mail: mlee@leesegui.com - and - Gregorio A. Francis, Esq. OSBORNE & FRANCIS LAW FIRM, PLLC 2707 E. Jefferson Street Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (561) 293-2600 Facsimile: (561) 923-8100 E-mail: gfrancis@realtoughlawyers.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Susan L. Meter, Esq. KANTOR & KANTOR LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street Northridge, CA 91324 Telephone: (818) 886-2525 Facsimile: (818) 350-6274 E-mail: smeter@kantorlaw.net - and - Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 222 2nd Ave S Nashville, TN 37210 Telephone: (615) 313-9000 Facsimile: (615) 313-9965 E-mail: kbyrd@lchb.com - and - Dhamian Blue, Esq. BLUE LLP P.O. Box 1730 Raleigh, NC 27602 Telephone: (919) 833-1931 Facsimile: (919) 833-8009 E-mail: dab@bluellp.com - and - Richard Schulte, Esq. WRIGHT & SCHULTE LLC 865 S. Dixie Dr Vandalia, OH 45377 Telephone: (937) 435-9999 Facsimile: (937) 435-7511 E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com - and - Julie Nepveu, Esq. AARP Foundation 601 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20049 Telephone: (202) 434-2075 Facsimile: (202) 434-6424 E-mail: jnepveu@aarp.org MDL 3035: Wade Files Second Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wade, et al., v. Newport Group, Inc., et al, Case No. 1:22-cv-01126 (W.D. Tenn., Oct. 1, 2025), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification for the second time pursuant to the Court's order denying the first motion to certify the class without prejudice with the ability to file a renewed motion. The Plaintiffs move the Court to increase the page limit for the following: (1) the memorandum in support of Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for Class Certification, (2) the memoranda in support of Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment, and (3) the statements of material facts in support of Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs initially moved to certify the class on May 7, 2025. On the same day that the Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion, the Sixth Circuit issued its en banc decision in Speerly v. General Motors, LLC, 143 F.4th 306 (6th Cir. 2025). Speerly announced the Sixth Circuit's newest articulation of what is required for class certification under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3), specifically regarding commonality and predominance -- an element-by-element analysis of each claim to ensure that at least one element is affected by a common legal or factual question that is susceptible to common proof. The Wade suit is consolidated in AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION, MDL 3035. These putative class actions present common factual questions arising from the allegation that the AME Church, senior Church officials, and financial companies contracted to administer the Church retirement plan were negligent in managing the plan and breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants, resulting in substantial losses to the plan that were discovered in 2021. All actions involve overlapping putative classes of participating employees, and investigations that will affect all actions reportedly are ongoing. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fsB1Ta at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew E. Lee, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: 855-496-7500 E-mail: mlee@leesegui.com - and - Gregorio A. Francis, Esq. OSBORNE & FRANCIS LAW FIRM, PLLC 2707 E. Jefferson Street Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (561) 293-2600 Facsimile: (561) 923-8100 E-mail: gfrancis@realtoughlawyers.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Susan L. Meter, Esq. KANTOR & KANTOR LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street Northridge, CA 91324 Telephone: (818) 886-2525 Facsimile: (818) 350-6274 E-mail: smeter@kantorlaw.net - and - Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 222 2nd Ave S Nashville, TN 37210 Telephone: (615) 313-9000 Facsimile: (615) 313-9965 E-mail: kbyrd@lchb.com - and - Dhamian Blue, Esq. BLUE LLP P.O. Box 1730 Raleigh, NC 27602 Telephone: (919) 833-1931 Facsimile: (919) 833-8009 E-mail: dab@bluellp.com - and - Richard Schulte, Esq. WRIGHT & SCHULTE LLC 865 S. Dixie Dr Vandalia, OH 45377 Telephone: (937) 435-9999 Facsimile: (937) 435-7511 E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com - and - Julie Nepveu, Esq. AARP Foundation 601 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20049 Telephone: (202) 434-2075 Facsimile: (202) 434-6424 E-mail: jnepveu@aarp.org MEATS AND GREENS: Silva Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------- Paulo Da Silva, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MEATS AND GREENS MARKET LLC, CARMEN MONTALVO and MAURO ORDONEZ, Case No. 2:25-cv-16426 (D.N.J., Oct. 9, 2025), is brought against Defendants to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation for Plaintiff, in alleged violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act, ("FLSA") and of the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices. Despite consistently working approximately 75 hours per week, the Plaintiff was not paid either the required minimum wage or overtime compensation at one and one-half times the regular rate for hours worked over 40 per week, resulting in substantial unpaid wages. The Defendants willfully and intentionally maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and the FLSA collective employees to work more than 40 hours per week without providing them with any additional compensation. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NJWHL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a butcher at their retail meat and grocery business in New Jersey. MEATS AND GREENS MARKET LLC is a duly organized business corporation under the laws of the State of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 203-2417 Email: info@StillmanLegalPC.com MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Underpays Automotive Technicians, Phillips Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ LADARIUS PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05816-MLB (N.D. Ga., October 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an automotive technician II from approximately July 2022 until July 2024. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is an automobile manufacturer based in Sandy Springs, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Stephens, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 191 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 57007 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 965-1682 Email: jstephens@forthepeople.com - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com META PLATFORMS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Stock Investment Scams ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Meta knowingly allows fraudsters on Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp to impersonate financial professionals in advertising and group messaging for investment scams disseminated to millions of users nationwide. The 37-page lawsuit alleges that criminals running stock investment scams, without repercussion, have been able to exploit Meta's paid advertising tools on Instagram and Facebook to impersonate actual financial advisors and professionals to create a façade of legitimacy for their scams. Per the complaint, advertisers can pay Meta to create and run ads using the tech giant's Ads Manager, which allows them to select an objective for the advertisement(s); set budget and bid strategies; choose audience parameters, such as demographics, behaviors, lookalikes and interests; upload text, images and/or videos; and designate placement across feeds, stories, short-form videos and other formats. When paid ads are disseminated, Meta employs machine-learning systems designed to maximize and optimize the ads' reach and engagement, the filing says. According to the suit, Meta represents that all advertisements on its platforms, including those created using its Ads Manager tools, are subject to its Terms, Community Standards and Advertising Policies, which state that false or misleading statements, fraudulent or deceptive practices and impersonation are strictly prohibited, and that Meta will remove or restrict any content, accounts and advertisements found in violation of that policy. Per the filing, Meta also states that each Instagram and Facebook advertisement made using the Meta Ads Manager is subject to both human and automated review processes before being disseminated across the advertiser's platform(s) of choice. However, the class action lawsuit alleges that scammers have been able to use Meta's Ads Manager to generate and run ad campaigns for investment scams whereby they impersonate financial professionals who possess legitimate online presences on Meta's platforms, in violation of both the law and Meta's terms and conditions. These impersonations, per the suit, are used to endorse the scammers' investment cons, lending them a false sense of legitimacy and steering victims into WhatsApp group chats run by the scammers, where consumers are then told to buy inflated stocks as part of various pump-and-dump schemes. The complaint alleges that the impersonations have caused and may continue to cause great harm to the plaintiffs' and other proposed class members' reputations, which in turn negatively affects their livelihoods as financial professionals, given that the success and growth of their businesses, per the suit, "depend on credibility, candor and client trust." Further, the filing claims that the plaintiffs and class members are at continued risk for future instances of identity theft and subsequent harm because, even after they first reported the impersonations to Meta, additional instances of impersonating ads appeared soon after. The lawsuit says that Meta has done functionally nothing to crack down on the impersonation and identity theft problems at issue in this class action, and has allowed the illegal advertisements, from which it profited due to the nature of its paid Ads Manager, to be disseminated on its platforms, even after the ads went through Meta's review processes. The Meta class action lawsuit seeks to represent any financial professionals in the U.S. whose names, voices, likenesses, credentials, images, branding or professional personas were, between January 1, 2023 and the present, used without their consent in paid advertisements or related promotional content for securities or other investment opportunities on Meta's platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, and/or click-to-WhatsApp campaigns and WhatsApp groups. [GN] MICROSOFT CORP: ChatGPT Users Sue Over OpenAI Inflated Prices ------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Biddle of VitalLaw reports that ChatGPT users allege Microsoft's exclusive cloud computing agreement with OpenAI artificially inflated prices. Eleven individual ChatGPT subscribers filed a class action complaint in the Northern District of California on October 13, 2025, alleging that Microsoft Corporation violated federal and California antitrust laws through an exclusive computing agreement with its horizontal competitor OpenAI that artificially constrained supply and inflated prices in the Consumer Generative AI market. The 99-page complaint alleges that Microsoft leveraged its position as OpenAI's exclusive cloud computing provider to restrict output of OpenAI's ChatGPT products, thereby extracting supracompetitive prices from consumers while simultaneously developing and marketing its own competing Copilot product line (Bryant v. Microsoft Corp., No. No. 3:25-cv-08733 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2025)). Microsoft-OpenAI relationship. According to the complaint, Microsoft's relationship with OpenAI began in July 2019 when Microsoft invested $1 billion in exchange for becoming OpenAI's exclusive cloud provider through its Azure platform. The agreement required OpenAI to purchase all computing resources exclusively from Microsoft Azure, with Microsoft taking a 20% revenue share from OpenAI's sales. By 2023, Microsoft had invested a total of $13 billion in OpenAI under this arrangement. The complaint alleges this exclusivity provision gave Microsoft direct control over the computational capacity available to OpenAI, which is essential for both training AI models and processing user queries. The plaintiffs characterize this as a "compute restraint" that allowed Microsoft to throttle its competitors' product output and quality while developing its own competing Consumer Generative AI products. Microsoft's position as both OpenAI's primary investor and its direct competitor in the Consumer Generative AI market creates what plaintiffs describe as an inherent conflict of interest. The complaint notes that Microsoft incorporated OpenAI's technology into its Copilot products across its Office 365 suite, GitHub coding tools, and Bing search engine under the partnership agreement. Market definition and alleged harm. The complaint defines the relevant market as the United States Consumer Generative AI Market, which it describes as a distinct submarket characterized by subscription-based access to large language models and multimodal AI systems accessed through consumer-facing interfaces. Market participants identified in the complaint include OpenAI's ChatGPT, Microsoft's Copilot, Google's Gemini, Anthropic's Claude, Perplexity, xAI's Grok, and DeepSeek. Plaintiffs allege that from ChatGPT's consumer launch on November 30, 2022, through June 10, 2025, Microsoft's compute restraint artificially inflated prices and degraded product quality. The complaint cites market share data showing OpenAI commanded 82.65% of the Consumer Generative AI market as of July 2025, with the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index calculated at 6916.59, well above the 1800 threshold the Department of Justice uses to define highly concentrated markets. The price effects allegedly became most stark after Chinese company DeepSeek AI entered the U.S. market in January 2025 with dramatically lower prices. The complaint alleges that while competitors reduced prices to meet DeepSeek's challenge, OpenAI's API pricing remained 136 to 200 times higher than competitors for equivalent models. One prominent AI developer, Theo Browne, was quoted in the complaint as noting: "OpenAI's new API is 200x more expensive than competition." The DeepSeek entry and price war. DeepSeek's entry in January 2025 serves as a critical inflection point in the plaintiffs' narrative. The Chinese startup reportedly trained competitive models at approximately $6 million—a fraction of OpenAI's costs -- and offered API access at rates up to 40 times cheaper than OpenAI's comparable models. This triggered an immediate price war among competitors with the computational flexibility to respond. The complaint alleges that while Google, Anthropic, and other competitors cut prices dramatically, OpenAI remained constrained by its exclusive arrangement with Microsoft. During this period, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman publicly attributed product delays and feature limitations to GPU shortages, including postponing the rollout of ChatGPT 4.5 and limiting image generation capabilities. June 2025 turning point. The complaint identifies June 10, 2025, as a watershed moment when Microsoft partially relaxed the compute exclusivity provision to allow OpenAI to purchase computing resources from Google. On that same day, OpenAI announced an 80% price reduction for its o3 model. The temporal coincidence of the exclusivity relaxation and price drop forms a central pillar of plaintiffs' causation argument. Following access to Google's computing infrastructure, the complaint alleges OpenAI rapidly released new models and features that had been delayed, including ChatGPT 5, advanced image generation capabilities, and the Codex coding model. Plaintiffs characterize this acceleration as evidence that Microsoft's compute restraint had previously suppressed product development and quality. However, the complaint notes that Microsoft's contractual right to restrict OpenAI's compute purchases remains in effect, creating what plaintiffs describe as a "sword of Damocles" that could be reimposed if market conditions change. Legal Claims. The complaint asserts three causes of action: violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, violation of California's Cartwright Act, and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs seek certification of three overlapping classes: The Nationwide Damages Class encompasses all U.S. purchasers of ChatGPT subscriptions from November 30, 2022, through February 1, 2025. This period covers from ChatGPT's consumer launch until DeepSeek's market entry, when plaintiffs allege the compute restraint's effects were most pronounced due to high barriers to entry. The UCL Restitution Class extends the period through June 10, 2025, when Microsoft relaxed the exclusivity provision, covering the additional months when plaintiffs allege OpenAI's prices remained artificially inflated during the post-DeepSeek price war. The Nationwide Injunction Class runs from ChatGPT's launch to the present, reflecting plaintiffs' request for prospective relief to prevent future enforcement of the compute exclusivity provision. The complaint advances both per se and rule of reason theories of liability. Under the per se theory, plaintiffs argue the exclusive compute agreement between horizontal competitors that directly restricts supply and output is presumptively unlawful without requiring elaborate market analysis. The complaint characterizes supply restrictions and price fixing as two sides of the same economic coin. Under the alternative rule of reason analysis, plaintiffs allege Microsoft's conduct demonstrably harmed competition by inflating prices, restricting output, and limiting consumer choice, with no legitimate procompetitive justification. The complaint argues that Microsoft's 20% revenue share from OpenAI should have incentivized maximizing OpenAI's output and sales, making the compute restraint explicable only as an anticompetitive strategy to hobble a competitor while developing Microsoft's own CGAI products. Barriers to entry. A substantial portion of the complaint details what plaintiffs term the "AI Computation Barrier to Entry" or AICBE. This barrier derives from the massive computational requirements for training large language models and processing inference requests at scale. Training cutting-edge models requires vast arrays of Nvidia GPUs, which are both expensive and scarce, with Nvidia holding approximately 88% market share in AI-optimized processors. The complaint alleges training costs have grown exponentially, with Google's Gemini Ultra costing an estimated $191 million compared to just $900 for the original Transformer model in 2017. These costs create natural barriers that limited market entry to well-resourced firms with existing cloud computing infrastructure --specifically Microsoft, Google, and Amazon. DeepSeek's January 2025 entry partially eroded this barrier through technical innovations that reduced training costs, and by open-sourcing its methods. However, the complaint maintains that significant computational requirements persist, and that switching costs and network effects continued to provide OpenAI with market power even after DeepSeek's entry -- market power that Microsoft allegedly exploited through the compute restraint. Requested relief. Plaintiffs seek treble damages under federal antitrust law for the overcharges paid by class members, plus restitution under California law. They also request that the court declare the exclusive compute provision unlawful and permanently enjoin its enforcement. The complaint also contemplates structural relief, including potential divestiture or segregation of Microsoft's Consumer Generative AI business lines to eliminate the conflict between Microsoft's roles as OpenAI's infrastructure provider and direct competitor. The Case is No. 3:25-cv-08733. Judge: NA. Attorneys: Yavar Bathaee (Bathaee Dunne LLP) for Samuel Bryant. Companies: Microsoft Corp. [GN] MOONLAKE IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against MoonLake Immunotherapeutics ("MoonLake" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MLTX). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information regarding the distinction between the Nanobodies and monoclonal antibodies, including that: (1) that SLK and BIMZELX share the same molecular targets (the inflammatory cytokines IL-17A and IL-17F); (2) that SLK's distinct Nanobody structure would not confer a superior clinical benefit over the traditional monoclonal structure of BIMZELX; (3) SLK's distinct Nanobody structure supposed increased tissue penetration would not translate to clinical efficacy; and (4) based on the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements regarding SLK's purported superiority to monoclonal antibodies. If you purchased shares of MoonLake between March 10, 2024 and September 29, 2025, and experienced a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or by visiting the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/moonlake-immunotherapeutics/ for more information. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is December 15, 2025. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] MOTOROLA INC: CAT Certifies GBP650-MM Suit Over Airwave Services ---------------------------------------------------------------- ICLG reports that collective proceedings financed by the UK Home Office have been given the green light to proceed on an opt-out basis. In a decision handed down on October 13, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has granted a collective proceedings order (CPO) on an opt-out basis in a landmark class action against Motorola. THE CASE The proposed class representative (PCR), Clare Spottiswoode CBE -- former director general at the Office of Gas Supply -- first filed a collective proceedings claim form on 5 December 2024, alleging that Motorola had abused its dominant position in breach of the Chapter 11 prohibition in section 18 of the Competition Act 1998 by charging "excessive and unfair prices" for the use of Land Mobile Radio (LMR) network services (Airwave Network). The Airwave Network, owned by Motorola since 2016, is the emergency radio communication network used by the police, ambulance, and fire and rescue services in Great Britain, as well as some government departments and smaller entities such as the coastguard and local authorities. The claim draws heavily on a market investigation into the Airwave Network carried out by the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), which found that Motorola was making "supernormal profits" through the network. Spottiswoode's claim has been brought on behalf of all purchasers that made a "specific financial contribution" for the use of Airwaves Services between January 2020 and July 2023. She estimates that the class action could encompass between 400 and 2,000 proposed class members (PCMs), with aggregate damages ranging from between GBP 600 million and 650 million. In a CAT first, the proceedings will not be privately commercially funded. Instead, the Home Office -- the largest PCM of the claim -- has entered into a litigation funding agreement with the PCR to fund the proposed proceedings. Before Mrs Justice Bacon, Robert Herga and Professor Anthony Neuberg were three central questions: whether the proposed class definition is clear and workable or should be replaced with a narrower definition; whether the claim should proceed on an opt-in or opt-out basis; and whether the claim in relation to the period of January 2020 to September 2020 should be struck out. CLASS DEFINITION Motorola described the proposed class definition -- split into contractual users, non-contractual purchasers and financial contributors -- as "unworkable", with counsel Brian Kennelly KC arguing that it would be unclear whether some PCMs had made "sufficiently specific" financial contributions to the network. He pushed for a narrower definition of the class, restricted to those who directly purchased the services from Motorola. The tribunal held that the class definition was "clear and objective", finding Motorola's claims "to be exaggerated" and rejecting its arguments that the proposed definition would cause a conflict of interest. TO BE IN, OR NOT TO BE IN Citing concerns over the "practicability of opt-in proceedings", Anneli Howard KC, for the PCR, pointed to "a very real likelihood" that many PCMs would face practical issues, including budgetary constraints and a lack of resources to make decisions on complex litigation. Motorola argued that an opt-in class action would be practicable, with counsel submitting PCMs would have the chance to "participate on a properly informed basis". In approving the claim to proceed on an opt-out basis, the tribunal pointed to the meaning of practicability as considered by the Court of Appeal in Le Patourel v BT [2022], which held that the term "includes being doable" but also encompasses whether it is "reasonable, proportionate, expedient, sensible, cost effective, efficient, etc to do it". The CAT noted that -- while the largest PCMs include the Home Office and the Department of Health and large government agencies with greater capabilities for participation, with the indirect purchasers comprising "sophisticated commercial organisations" such as Heathrow Airport -- most of the PCMs were smaller-scale entities without the time or resources for "active opt-in participation". "It is apparent from the evidence before us that there would be a significant impediment to access to justice to many class members if the proposed claims were to proceed on an opt-in basis," the tribunal wrote. STRIKE-OUT Attempting to strike out the first nine months of the claim period (January 2020 to September 2020), counsel submitted that the PCR's failure to allege Motorola's market dominance in 2017 rendered the claim "defective" for the relevant period. Rhodri Thompson KC, for the PCR, contended that Motorola's dominance prior to 1 January 2020 was "legally irrelevant" to the case. The CAT ultimately sided with the PCR, holding that the period could not be struck from the claim, which does not rest on arguments that the disputed prices were abusive because Motorola was in a dominant position when they were set. THE PARTIES In Spottiswoode v Airwave Solutions Limited & Others, the PCR was represented by Rhodri Thompson KC and Suzanne Rab of Matrix Chambers and Anneli Howard KC of Monckton Chambers, instructed by Ashurst and White & Case. The defendants were represented by Brian Kennelly KC and Tom Coates of Blackstone Chambers, instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer. [GN] NESTLE HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over "Nutritional Drink" Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Eric Testori filed a class action lawsuit against Nestle Health Science US Holdings Inc. Why: Testori claims Nestle misrepresents the nutritional value of its Carnation Breakfast Essentials Nutritional Drink Classic French Vanilla. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. Nestle misrepresents the nutritional value of its Carnation Breakfast Essentials Nutritional Drink Classic French Vanilla by concealing the fact that it contains more sugar than protein, according to a class action lawsuit. Plaintiff Eric Testori's class action lawsuit claims Nestle advertises the product as a "nutritional drink" that contains 10 grams of protein per serving, while concealing that it is primarily composed of sugar and water. Testori argues Nestle's Carnation Breakfast Essentials Nutritional Drink Classic French Vanilla contains 10 grams of protein but also delivers 12 grams of sugar per serving, which he claims is 24% of the recommended daily value for added sugars. "A product whose first two ingredients are water and glucose, and which delivers a higher concentration of sugar than protein, is not a nutritional 'breakfast essential,'" Testori claims. Testori wants to represent a California class of consumers who purchased the product. He accuses Nestle of violating California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law and of fraud and unjust enrichment. Testori demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory, statutory, punitive and treble damages for himself and all class members. Nestle's marketing misleads consumers about product's true nutritional value, class action alleges Testori argues that Nestle's marketing of the product exploits consumers' interest in protein and health while downplaying its true composition as a sweetened beverage primarily made of water and sugar. Testori argues Nestle's marketing of the product as a protein-rich "Breakfast Essential" misrepresents its true nutritional profile and deceives consumers seeking protein and balanced nutrition. "Defendant's labeling is nevertheless unlawful and misleading," the class action lawsuit alleges. "FDA regulations prohibit nutrient content claims that are presented in a manner that misleads consumers about the product's overall nutritional value." In other deceptive labeling claims against Nestle, a U.S. district judge ruled that plaintiffs in a proposed class action lawsuit had sufficiently alleged that the labeling of Nestle's Boost Glucose Control drink tricked buyers into thinking the beverage can treat diabetes. The plaintiff is represented by Mark D. Potter, James M. Treglio, Cara Townsend, Isabel Rose Masanque and Bree Durso of Potter Handy LLP. The Nestle class action lawsuit is Testori v. Nestle Health Science US Holdings Inc., Case No. 1:25-at-00905, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. [GN] NEUROMUSCULOSKELETAL CENTER: Offers Data Monitoring as Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that the Neuromusculoskeletal Center of the Cascades and the Cascade Surgicenter will offer time and expense reimbursement, medical data monitoring and cash payments to settle a class action lawsuit over an October 2023 data breach. The Cascades class action settlement received preliminary court approval on August 26, 2025 and covers anyone who received notice from the Neuromusculoskeletal Center of the Cascades or Cascade Surgicenter that their personal information was compromised in the data breach, which occurred between October 2 and October 3, 2023. The court-approved website for the Cascades data incident settlement can be found at CascadeSurgicenterSettlement.com. According to the website, Cascade Surgicenter settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form will be able to receive medical data monitoring services, up to $500 in reimbursement for documented, out-of-pocket expenses related to the data breach, up to $2,500 in reimbursement for money lost to identity theft or fraud stemming from the data breach, and payment for up to four hours spent dealing with the effects of the data breach, at a rate of $25 per hour. In lieu of all of those benefits, class members may instead choose to submit a claim for a one-time cash payment of $80. The medical data monitoring offered by the settlement allows class members to enroll in two years of CyEx Medical Shield Total, which includes $1 million of identity theft insurance and monitoring for unauthorized health savings account spending, healthcare insurance ID exposure and medical record number exposure. Per the settlement website, any out-of-pocket expenses that class members seek to claim must have occurred between October 2, 2023 and December 26, 2025, and may include: -- Costs to replace IDs; -- Fees for credit reports, credit monitoring or freezing and unfreezing credit; and -- Postage to contact banks by mail. Similarly, any identity theft- or fraud-related losses must have occurred between October 2, 2023 and December 26, 2025 and have been caused by instances of fraud or identity theft that are reasonably traceable to the Cascades Surgicenter data breach. For either reimbursement option, class members must submit documented proof, such as receipts, of each loss or expense they seek to claim, the class action settlement website specifies. To receive payment for time spent dealing with the effects of the data breach -- which may include time spent changing passwords, researching the data breach or investigating suspicious account activity -- class members must submit descriptions of how their claimed time was spent in relation to the data breach. To submit a claim form online, class members can visit this page of the settlement website and log in with the unique ID and PIN found in their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, a PDF of the claim form is available to print, fill out and mail back to the address listed on the third page of the form. Claim forms for the Cascades Surgicenter and the Neuromusculoskeletal Center of the Cascades class action settlement must be submitted online or postmarked by December 26, 2025. Cascades Surgicenter and the Neuromusculoskeletal Center of the Cascades have also, as part of the settlement, agreed to improve their information security systems, court documents report. A hearing is scheduled for January 9, 2026 to determine whether the settlement will receive final approval from the court. Settlement benefits will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Cascades Surgicenter and Neuromusculoskeletal Center of the Cascades class action lawsuit alleged that the defendants were negligent in their cybersecurity measures, enabling unauthorized third parties to access the sensitive personal and health data of approximately 22,796 patients. [GN] NEW HAMPSHIRE: Loitering Law "Unconstitutional," Clark Says ----------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT CLARK, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHN M. FORMELLA, in his official capacity only as Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00379-PB-AJ (D.N.H., September 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fourteenth and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. This lawsuit is a straightforward facial challenge to New Hampshire's "Loitering or Prowling" statute at N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. (RSA) Section 644:6. Through this statute, the State unconstitutionally makes illegal innocent human behaviors that pose no threat to people or society. Under this statute, ordinary conduct -- including standing, walking, or congregating in public -- becomes unlawful if a police officer arbitrarily determines that it is occurring "under circumstances that warrant alarm for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity." Rather than articulating specific prohibited conduct, the statute defers almost entirely to a police officer's subjective view of what "warrants alarm," says the suit. The complaint asserts that the loitering statute's arbitrary and disproportionate enforcement against these and other unhoused people illustrates its unconstitutionality. Its vague terms invite abuse by authorizing arrests based on mere hunches. This statute's constitutionality is not an academic exercise for these and the hundreds of other individuals who are caught within this statute's vague ambit each year and, as a result, are subjected to judicial proceedings in which they often are not even entitled to counsel, the complaint contends. Accordingly, Plaintiff Clark, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, brings a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendant John M. Formella in his capacity as the Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire. The Plaintiff and the proposed class seek a ruling that (i) declares that RSA 644:6 facially violates the Fourteenth and Fourth Amendments, and (ii) permanently enjoins the State from enforcing the statute. The Plaintiff is a 37-year-old unhoused man living in Concord, New Hampshire. John M. Formella is sued in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire.[BN] 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 ON HOLDING: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Athletic Shoes ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Garner, writing for FN, reports that Swiss running brand On Holding AG is facing a new class action lawsuit after multiple people claim its sneakers with CloudTec outsoles emit "a loud, embarrassing, and difficult to stop squeaking sound" with each step. In a complaint filed on Thursday, October 9, in U.S. District Court in Oregon, Patricia Ramirez and Louis Bologna are both claiming they were "injured by the price premium" they paid for the shoes as a result of On's "material representations and omissions." Ramirez stated in the lawsuit that she bought a pair of On Cloudmonster sneakers from a Dick's Sporting Goods in Sept. 2024 and noticed "almost immediately" that the shoes were allegedly squeaking with every step. Ramirez stated that she only used them three times before "giving up on them" and is "no longer able to use her shoes as intended due to the embarrassment and annoyance." Bologna has a similar story, stating in the claim that he purchased a pair of On Cloudmonster sneakers from the brand's website last September. He claims that after three months of using the sneakers, he noticed a "squeaking" with each step and can no longer walk or run in the shoes. The complaint goes on to highlight several social media posts on Reddit and TikTok as well as negative reviews from consumers who have experienced the same alleged problem. Both plaintiffs are claiming they tried to remedy the problem by returning the shoes but were unable to do so. "[On] continued to market and sell its high-priced athletic shoes with a defect that it knew existed but failed to remedy the issue," the complaint added. "At the same time, [On] refused to make injured consumers whole by exempting this defect from its warranty and continued to sell the product without any warning. [On] could have warned consumer, fixed the design, and/or offered to fix the shoes or give consumers their money back but did none of those things." When contacted by FN, a representative from On stated that the company does not comment on ongoing legal matters. The unusual case comes after On stated in its fourth quarter earnings call in March that its Cloudmonster and Cloudsurfer sneaker models contributed "significantly" to growth in the period. [GN] ORTHOPEDICS RHODE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $2.9MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Alder of The HIPAA Journal reports that Orthopedics Rhode Island (Ortho RI) has agreed to pay $2.9 million to settle a class action lawsuit stemming from a 2024 ransomware attack. The ransomware attack was detected by Ortho RI on September 7, 2025, with the forensic investigation confirming unauthorized network access from September 4 to September 8, 2024. Information compromised in the incident included names, addresses, dates of birth, billing and claims information, health insurance claims information, diagnoses, medications, test results, x-ray images, and other treatment information. The data breach was reported to the HHS' Office for Civil Rights as involving unauthorized access to the protected health information of 377,731 individuals. The affected individuals were notified about the incident via a November 6, 2024, website notice and individual notifications, which were mailed on December 6, 2024. Seven class action lawsuits were filed against Ortho RI over the data breach, one of which was dismissed. The remaining actions were consolidated in Lavoie-Soria et al. v Orthopedics Rhode Island, Inc. in Kent County Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island, as the lawsuits had overlapping claims and were based on the same facts. The plaintiffs claim to have suffered injuries due to the attack, including lost or diminished value of their private information, lost opportunity costs associated with mitigating the consequences of the data breach, and out-of-pocket losses associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery from identity theft and fraud. The lawsuit asserted claims of negligence and negligence per se due to the failure to implement reasonable and appropriate cybersecurity measures, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. Ortho RI maintains there was no wrongdoing; however, it chose to settle the lawsuit to avoid the costs, risks, and uncertainty of continuing with the litigation. The class representatives believe the settlement is best for all individuals in the settlement class for the same reasons. Under the terms of the settlement, all class members are entitled to claim two years of medical record monitoring services plus one of two cash payments. A claim may be submitted for reimbursement of documented, unreimbursed losses related to the data breach up to a maximum of $5,000 per class member. Alternatively, class members may claim an alternative cash payment, which is anticipated to be around $100. Attorneys' fees, settlement administration costs, service awards for class representatives, and medical record monitoring costs will be deducted from the settlement fund, after which claims will be paid from the remaining funds. The deadline for objection to and exclusion from the settlement is December 29, 2025. The deadline for submitting a claim is January 13, 2026, and the final approval hearing has been scheduled for January 28, 2026. [GN] OTT CONE: Settles 2024 Data Breach Class Suit for $600,000 ---------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a $600,000 class action settlement will end litigation against boutique law firm Ott Cone & Redpath over a June 2024 data breach that exposed the personal information of more than 34,400 people. The Ott Cone & Redpath class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on August 12, 2025 and covers anyone who received notice of the data breach from Ott Cone. The court-approved website for the Ott Cone & Redpath settlement can be found at OCRDataIncident.com. Ott Cone settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form will be able to receive three years of one-bureau credit monitoring services, as well as either a cash payment of $50 or up to $2,500 in reimbursement for documented, out-of-pocket expenses related to the Ott Cone & Redpath data breach. Per the settlement document, out-of-pocket expenses cannot have already been reimbursed by another source, and may include: -- Fees related to a credit freeze; -- Costs of obtaining a credit report; -- Card replacement fees; -- Late fees; -- Over-limit fees; -- Bank or credit card fees; -- Costs associated with up to one year of credit monitoring or identity theft insurance purchased between June 2, 2024 and December 15, 2025 as a response to the data breach; -- Interest and fees on payday loans taken as a result of the data breach; and -- Costs of postage, mileage or other incidental expenses resulting from the data breach. In order to receive reimbursement, class members must submit documentation supporting each out-of-pocket, data breach-related expense they seek to claim. Expense reimbursement and the $50 cash payout are mutually exclusive, meaning class members can only choose one option to claim. The credit monitoring service may be claimed alongside either of these options, the class action settlement website says. Both the reimbursement and the cash payment may be subject to a decrease on a pro rata, or equal share, basis, depending on the total number of valid claims filed, the website adds. To file a claim form online, class members can visit this page of the settlement website and log in with the unique CPT ID and passcode found in their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, a PDF of the claim form is available to print, fill out and mail back to the address listed at the bottom of the first page. All claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by December 10, 2025. A hearing is scheduled for December 15, 2025 to determine whether the settlement will receive final court approval. Settlement benefits will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Ott Cone & Redpath class action lawsuit claimed that a cyberattack on or around June 3, 2024 gave unauthorized cybercriminals access to the law firm’s files, which included the names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, health insurance information, medical treatment information and financial account information of approximately 34,457 people. [GN] PRESTIGE FUNDS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Ponzi Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------ Securities Fraud Attorneys, on behalf of Batman Investments LLC and a proposed class of investors, has filed a securities class action alleging that Prestige Funds and Paramount Management Group operated a Ponzi scheme built on false statements about ownership and operation of ATM machines. The complaint, Batman Investments LLC v. Hostetter, et al., was filed Aug. 27, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The action seeks at least $700 million in compensatory damages, plus pre- and post-judgment interest. Defendants are identified as Jerry Hostetter, Mir Jafer Ali "Buck" Joffrey, Randall Leaman and David Zook. The proposed class alleges the companies and their executives raised roughly $700 million from about 2,700 investors by claiming to own and operate about 38,000 ATMs nationwide. According to the complaint, Prestige and Paramount owned fewer than 10,000 ATMs, with fewer than 1,000 in operation, and used new investor funds to pay prior investors. The suit alleges that executives diverted investor money for their personal benefit and concealed mounting losses through deceptive accounting practices. The filing cites missed investor payments beginning in April 2024 and references subsequent events involving non-party Daryl Heller, including an FBI search in December 2024 and a February 2025 bankruptcy. "We are seeing a rise in cases involving unregistered securities raising millions of dollars using unlicensed promoters to help raise capital," said Scott Silver, managing partner of Securities Fraud Attorneys. "Unfortunately, while privately held companies need access to capital, investors need to be careful about false representations, securities fraud, and the proliferation of Ponzi schemes in the private marketplace." The case seeks to certify a class of investors who purchased interests in the Prestige Funds and related entities tied to Paramount's ATM operations. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws and state-law claims and requests a jury trial. Investors who purchased interests associated with Prestige Funds, Paramount Management Group or related entities and who suffered losses are encouraged to contact Securities Fraud Attorneys for a confidential consultation. CASE INFORMATION U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Batman Investments LLC v. Hostetter, et al. Case No. 5:25-cv-04911 ABOUT Securities Fraud Attorneys / Silver Law Group Securities Fraud Attorneys (Silver Law Group) represents investors nationwide in securities arbitration, class actions and litigation, focusing on recovery from investment fraud and financial misconduct. Securities Fraud Attorneys / Silver Law Group 11780 W Sample Rd Coral Springs, FL 33065 https://securitiesfraudattorneys.com/ MEDIA CONTACT Scott Silver (800) 975-4345 ssilver@silverlaw.com [GN] QANTAS AIRLINES: May Face Suit Over Leaked Customers' Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Guardian reports that the number of scams is expected to rise after the personal information of millions of Qantas customers was leaked on the dark web by international hackers. A hacker collective called Scattered Lapsus$ Hunters released the stolen records from more than 40 companies worldwide, including Qantas, after their deadline for ransom payment passed. Here's what you need to know about the data breach. What Qantas data has been leaked? Customer names, email addresses, and frequent flyer numbers for over 5 million customers were among the data leaked, Qantas said. The amount of individual data obtained varies between customers. Some customer records included home and business addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, gender and even meal preferences. Federal politicians were among those whose home addresses were leaked, the national cyber security coordinator has said. Qantas said it had emailed affected customers to advise which types of their information was impacted. No identity documents, credit cards or financial details were leaked, nor were any passwords or pin numbers, and hackers have not gained access to Frequent Flyer accounts, the airline said. Will scammers access the Qantas data leak? Qantas has sought and received an injunction from the NSW Supreme Court, which prevents the stolen data being accessed, viewed, released, used, transmitted or published. It is illegal to access the the stolen data, according to Tony Burke, the minister for cybersecurity. "No-one should go looking for it on the dark web . . . even if you're looking for your own material," he told ABC News Breakfast. However, the government expects scammers will illegally use the data and carry out an increased number of scams to extract information from customers. Reports of scammers impersonating Qantas are already on the rise, the airline said. What should customers do? Customers should hang up on cold calls from people claiming to represent legitimate businesses, with the Australian government encouraging people to contact the business themselves. Cold callers could use the personal information to trick people into believing they are representatives of real businesses, the government warned. "If you're getting a call you're not expecting, hang up, call back through the official line," Burke said. Dr Marthie Grobler, CSIRO's Data61 principal research scientist, warned frequent flyer details could be used to make fake flight rescheduling or fraudulent reward redemption offers more believable. Qantas has advised customers who are contacted by people claiming to represent the airline to be cautious, follow Burke's advice and ensure emails end in the official address -- qantas.com or qantas.com.au -- not imitations such as qantas.net or qantas.biz. The national privacy regulator recommends Australians change their email account passwords and enable two-step authentication. Qantas has offered a 24/7 support hotline and specialist identity protection advice for affected customers. Will affected customers be compensated? Qantas has not offered to compensate affected customers. Burke said he had not been focused on the issue of compensation and was more focused on whether Qantas had breached its obligations, which could incur fines. A leading class action law firm, Maurice Blackburn, has flagged it may seek compensation on behalf of affected customers, after lodging a representative complaint over the data breach in July. Data breaches at other Australian companies such as Optus and Medibank have prompted class action claims in recent years. How did the Qantas data leak occur? The hackers did not get the data by scamming individual customers but instead targeting a Qantas call centre and gaining access to the customers servicing platform in June, the airline said. Other companies targeted by recent attacks include Google, Toyota, Disney, McDonald's, Puma, Cartier, Adidas, Qantas, Air France-KLM, Chanel and Ikea. Google analysis suggested the hackers called companies and pretended to be IT support staff, convincing legitimate staff to give them access to their Salesforce software platform, which stored customer data. Salesforce said the hackers had not broken into the platform through any software vulnerabilities and there was no sign the platform was compromised. [GN] RETINA VITREOUS: Fails to Protect Private Info, McCloud Says ------------------------------------------------------------ RONALD MCCLOUD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RETINA VITREOUS CONSULTANTS, LLP, Defendant, Case No. CACE-25-015602 (Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Fl., October 13, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable health information ("PHI") of Plaintiff and the Class members, including, without limitation: names, patient ID numbers, procedure codes, dates of services, treatment costs, health insurance information, prescription information. The complaint relates that on or around November 2024, an intruder gained entry to Defendant's database, accessed Plaintiff's and the Class members' PHI, and exfiltrated information from Defendant's systems. The Defendant did not notify Plaintiff and the Class members of the incident until September 16, 2025. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff's and the Class members' PHI that was acquired in the Data Breach Incident can be sold on the dark web. Hackers can access and then offer for sale the unencrypted, unredacted PHI to criminals. The Plaintiff and the Class members face a lifetime risk of identity theft. The Plaintiff's and the Class members' PHI was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect the Plaintiff's and the Class members' PHI, adds the complaint. Until notified of the Data Breach Incident, the Plaintiff and Class Members had no idea their PHI had been stolen, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Broward County, Florida. Defendant, a Florida corporation, is a medical provider headquartered in Broward County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954-400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Zane Hedaya, Esq. Gerald Lane, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street Suite 1744 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 ROKU INC: Faces Class Suit Over Collecting Children's Personal Data ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Roku knowingly allows third-party tracking tools on its platform to illegally collect sensitive personal information about child users, who make up a significant portion of the company's user base. According to the 24-page lawsuit, Roku, a popular streaming service host platform, employs third-party data tracking tools, including some made custom for its software, in order to collect sensitive and personally identifiable information from users, including children. The suit specifically names Google, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, CJ Affiliate, Innovid, New Relic and Display & Video 360 as the proprietors of the tracking software used by Roku, reportedly the top TV content platform nationwide. The data that's collected is primarily used in ad targeting, the suit says. However, the complaint states that not only is the collection of such information from children illegal under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), but that Roku is fully aware of its obligations under the law and continues to illicitly collect this data for the sake of its advertising profits. The apparent reasons for Roku's child-data collection are not due to a lack of child-directed content on its platform, the filing says, as Roku, among its content categories, called Roku Zones, includes Zones specifically for its selection of kids and family entertainment. As such, the lawsuit alleges that Roku's collection and monetization of children's data is fully informed and intentional. Further, while many streaming providers that offer child-directed content allow users to create a child profile -- which, among other functions, either disables data collection or requires parental consent to activate it -- Roku has deliberately elected not to implement any such features on its platform, allowing it to indiscriminately employ data collection practices, even for child-directed or child-viewed content, for the purpose of ad targeting, the class action lawsuit alleges. Cited in the lawsuit is Roku's 2023 SEC Form 10-K, in which the company stated that "there is political or regulatory pressure in some countries to limit streaming TV advertising (including limiting the advertising that may be associated with children's content) or impose local content requirements on streaming TV services, which could pose a threat to our services." Per the suit, the document also includes an acknowledgement from Roku that the company "could be at risk for violation or alleged violation of . . . privacy, advertising, children's online protection or similar laws." According to the case, Roku's privacy policy discloses that it collects and distributes to third parties the following user information, including that of children: -- Voice data, including recordings, from its various voice command-enabled functions; -- Other audio and visual information from users, which, per Roku's old privacy policy, explicitly included "consumers' photos, videos and audio recordings" until December 2024; -- Commercial information, including purchases made, obtained or considered, records of personal property and other purchasing or consumption histories; -- Unique online identifiers, including, but not limited to, IP addresses, browser cookies and advertising and device identifiers; -- Internet or other electronic network activity information, such as search history, browsing history and consumers' interactions with various websites, applications or advertisements; -- Users' precise geolocations; and -- Account registration information, including names, email addresses, home addresses and phone numbers. The complaint alleges that Roku is fully aware of and intentional in its collection, dissemination and monetization of children's data from its platform and the illegality thereof under COPPA regulations. The Roku class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone who, before reaching the age of majority, requested child-directed content or used any voice function on any Roku-enabled device during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] RUSH STREET: Director-Removal Provision "Invalid," Jennings Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ NATHAN JENNINGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RUSH STREET INTERACTIVE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2025-1153 (Del. Ch., October 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of Section 141(k) of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The Plaintiff brings this action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Defendant on behalf of all similarly situated holders of Class A shares of the Defendant's common stock. The Plaintiff and the Class seek an order declaring the Director-Removal Provision invalid and enjoining its enforcement. According to the complaint, giving the Board a discretionary power to remove other directors violates Section 141(k) of the DGCL, says the suit. Rush Street Interactive, Inc. is an online gambling company, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Sborz, Esq. Andrew J. Peach, Esq. Jackson E. Warren, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC 4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 250 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 504-4957 Email: dsborz@andrewsspringer.com apeaach@andrewsspringer.com jwarren@andrewsspringer.com - and - J. Abbott R. Cooper, Esq. ABBOTT COOPER PLLC 1266 East Main Street, Suite 700R Stamford, CT 06902 Telephone: (475) 477-5031 - and - Joel Fleming, Esq. EQUITY LITIGATION GROUP LLP 1 Washington Mall, #1307 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 468-8602 - and - D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. KASKELA LAW LLC 18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100 Newtown Square, PA 19073 Telephone: (484) 258-1585 SAFELITE GROUP: Faces Curtis Suit Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharges ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER B. CURTIS and CHAD AUSTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SAFELITE GROUP, INC. and the SAFELITE GROUP, INC. BENEFITS ADMINISTRATOR, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01173-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, October 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendants' practice of charging a tobacco surcharge that unjustly forces certain employees to pay higher premiums for their health insurance. The Safelite Assoc Ben Plan Insured Plan does not provide the required reasonable alternative standard, and even if it did, it has failed to adequately notify employees about the availability of such an alternative in all its Plan communications. Consequently, the Defendants' tobacco surcharge violates ERISA's anti-discrimination provisions by imposing additional costs on employees who use tobacco products without meeting the legal requirements for a wellness program. As a result of the imposition of the unlawful and discriminatory tobacco surcharge, the Defendants enriched themselves at the expense of the Plan, the suit says. Safelite Group, Inc. is a provider of vehicle glass repair, replacement, and claims management services, headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Christopher P. Renz, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Ave., Ste. 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Email: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com crenz@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Oren Faircloth, Esq. Willian Payne, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: ofaircloth@sirillp.com wpayne@sirillp.com SOLARAY LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carpenter Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- BRANDEE CARPENTIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOLARAY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03185 (D. Colo., Oct. 9, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Carpenter was employed by the Defendant as a sales representative. Solaray LLC, doing business as SRP Cos, operates as a sunglass company. The Company manufactures and distributes optical supplies including eyewear, wireless accessories, lighters, gift cards, and apparel products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MN 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com ST. THERESE SENIOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clark Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPHINE CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ST. THERESE SENIOR LIVING, LLC; ST. THERESE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; and ST. THERESE OF AVON, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-03890 (D. Minn., Oct. 9, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Clark was employed by the Defendants as a staff. St. Therese Senior Living, LLC owns and operates nursing facilities, senior living facilities, and related business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emma R. Denny, Esq. Drew Kudlinski, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS 305 5th Ave N, Suite 440 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 643-9306 Facsimile: (612) 643-9306 Email: edenny@hkm.com dkudlinski@hkm.com - and - Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq. TITTLE & PERLMUTER 4106 Bridge Ave. Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 308-1522 Facsimile: (888) 604-9299 Email: scott@tittlelawfirm.com STATE FARM: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Underpaid Total Loss Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Craig Brewer filed a class action lawsuit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. Why: Brewer claims State Farm failed to pay the full and correct amount for vehicle total loss claims. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in North Carolina federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. failed to pay the full and correct amount for vehicle total loss claims. Plaintiff Craig Brewer argues State Farm has a "systematic and uniform" practice of reducing the retail cost of comparable vehicles used in the calculation of total loss claim payments. Brewer claims the practice violates North Carolina's motor vehicle total loss regulation and results in State Farm avoiding paying the full and correct amount for vehicle total loss claims. "When valuing vehicle total loss claims, it is improper for insurance companies to undervalue and underpay the claims by manipulating the data used to value the vehicles," the State Farm class action lawsuit says. State Farm used CCC One Reports to underpay total loss claims, class action alleges Brewer wants to represent a class of North Carolina State Farm automobile policyholders who had their total loss claims calculated and paid by State Farm using a CCC One Report where the retail cost of comparable vehicles was reduced to arrive at a pre-accident value. The plaintiff claims State Farm is guilty of breach of contract and violating North Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act. Brewer demands a jury trial and requests declaratory relief and an award of compensatory damages and other appropriate remedies for himself and all class members. Earlier this year, a California federal judge certified a class of nearly 200,000 homeowners who allege State Farm underpaid property insurance claims in violation of state insurance codes. The class action lawsuit claims State Farm unlawfully deducted sales tax when calculating the actual cash value of homeowners' personal property. The plaintiff is represented by Aaron C. Hemmings and Kelly A. Stevens of Hemmings & Stevens PLLC. The State Farm class action lawsuit is Brewer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-00904, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. [GN] STATE FARM: Walsh Class Suit Removed to D. Minn. ------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Justin Walsh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Defendant, Case No. 27-CV-25-16914, was removed from Hennepin County District Court, Minnesota to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on October 13, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-03929 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff who is insured by the Defendant under a homeowners policy, claims that his request for appraisal of a property damage loss was denied by State Farm on the grounds it was untimely. State Farm is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Todd A. Noteboom, Esq. William D. Thomson, Esq. Alexandra P. Stanley, Esq. STINSON LLP 50 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 335-1500 Facsimile: (612) 335-1657 E-mail: todd.noteboom@stinson.com william.thomson@stinson.com alexandra.stanley@stinson.com TD BANK: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Improper Overdraft Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Sandeep Trisal filed a class action lawsuit against TD Bank N.A. Why: Trisal claims TD Bank failed to comply with its agreement to personal deposit account holders to refund any overdraft fees assessed to an overdrawn account if the account is brought into a positive available balance within the "grace period" specified by the bank. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in New Jersey federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges TD Bank wrongfully charged its customers improper overdraft fees. Plaintiff Sandeep Trisal claims TD Bank failed to comply with its agreement to personal deposit account holders to refund any overdraft fees assessed to an overdrawn account if the account is brought into a positive available balance within the "grace period" specified by the bank. Trisal wants to represent a nationwide class of TD Bank personal deposit account holders who had an available balance of -$50.01 or less on any day between Oct. 11, 2022, and the present, had an available account balance of $0.00 or more as of 11:00 p.m. ET on the next business day after the overdrawn day and was assessed and not refunded one or more $35.00 overdraft fee(s) attributable to one or more transaction(s) that was posted to the account on the overdrawn day. "By assessing $35.00 overdraft fees for overdrafts that were cured within the 'grace period' specified in the Deposit Agreement, TD Bank breached its contractual obligations to Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class, damaging them monetarily," the TD Bank class action lawsuit says. TD Bank allegedly failed to refund overdraft fees even when account brought into positive balance TD Bank announced in October 2022 that it had made "additional enhancements to its overdraft policies and services," including a new policy called "TD Grace Period," which gave customers until 11:00 p.m. ET the next business day to bring their balance back to $0 or above to avoid overdraft fees. Trisal claims he overdrew his account by more than $50 on multiple occasions but made sufficient deposits to bring his available account balance to at least $0 as of 11:00 p.m. ET on the business day after his account became overdrawn. However, TD Bank failed to refund the $35 overdraft fees it assessed to his account for these overdrafts, he alleges. Trisal claims TD Bank's actions constitute breach of contract. He is seeking actual, compensatory, consequential and punitive damages for himself and the proposed class. Earlier this year, TD Bank faced a class action lawsuit alleging it improperly charged cash advance fees for transactions that were not cash advances. Trisal is represented by Philip L. Fraietta of Bursor & Fisher P.A. and Frank S. Hedin of Hedin LLP. The TD Bank class action lawsuit is Trisal v. TD Bank N.A., Case No. 1:25-cv-16196, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. [GN] TESLA INC: Faces Class Suit Over "Full Self-Driving" False Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fred Lambert, writing for electrek, reports that thousands of Tesla owners have reportedly joined a class action lawsuit against the automaker in Australia over false claims about its 'Full Self-Driving' (FSD) package. Tesla is facing mounting legal pressure over its advanced driver assistance (ADAS) features: Autopilot and Full Self-Driving. The company has been embroiled in lawsuits related to crashes involving its ADAS features, including losing its first trial and settling several other similar lawsuits. Furthermore, Tesla has been facing several class-action lawsuits and regulatory scrutiny over allegations of misrepresenting its features. These have been mounting since CEO Elon Musk admitted that its Hardware 3 self-driving computer (HW3) will not be capable of unsupervised self-driving. In 2016, Tesla claimed that all vehicles produced from this point forward would have "all the hardware for full self-driving" and the company described full self-driving as level 4-5 fully autonomous driving. Musk initially claimed that Tesla would retrofit vehicles with new hardware capable of full self-driving, but it has been 10 months, and there's been no word about an upgrade or even a significant software update for HW3 owners. This situation has led to several class action lawsuits. A judge recently shut down Tesla's attempt to block a HW3 class action in the US. Last month, a similar lawsuit was launched against Tesla in China. In February, shortly after Musk admitted that HW3 won't support autonomous driving, a class action was launched in Australia related to the matter and other allegations of problems with Tesla's ADAS features not delivering the promised capabilities. Now, Rebecca Jancauskas, a director at the firm leading the class action, told News Corp Australia "thousands of Australians" have joined the lawsuit. She said: "Tesla made promises about their vehicles' safety, performance and features such as their 'Full Self-Driving,' but we have found a lot of these promises are falling flat." The lawsuit seeks "a financial settlement that adequately compensates Australian consumers for what they thought they were getting, but haven't, in fact, received". Unlike Musk's claim that only Tesla owners who bought the FSD package would get an upgrade, the class action in Australia covers Tesla Model 3 and Model Y owners who purchased or leased their vehicles between May 2021 and February 2025. Electrek's Take The sharks are circling. Lawyers are all over this because, at least in my opinion, it is a fairly straightforward case. Tesla claimed vehicles had capabilities that it didn't have. Period. It is dragging its feet to make things right, and I have no hope that it will unless forced to. It also affects not only people who bought FSD. Tesla claimed that all cars were equipped with the hardware capable of full self-driving. Even if the software package had not been purchased, it would affect the value and, therefore, all owners. [GN] THERAPEUTIC HEALTH: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $790,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that Therapeutic Health Services will pay $790,000 to settle a class action lawsuit over a February 2024 data breach during which unauthorized third parties accessed patient data. The Therapeutic Health Services class action settlement received preliminary court approval on September 9, 2025 and covers all U.S. residents who are identified by Therapeutic Health Services as having had their personal information accessed during the data breach, which occurred around February 26, 2024. The court-approved website for the Therapeutic Health Services settlement can be found at THSDataSettlement.com. Therapeutic Health Services settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form will be able to receive up to $5,000 in reimbursement for out-of-pocket losses related to the data breach, credit monitoring services and a pro rata (equal share) cash payment from the remainder of the $790,000 settlement fund. The court estimates that the cash payout amount for each eligible class member will be approximately $100, depending on the total number of valid claims that are filed. Class members seeking reimbursement for out-of-pocket data breach losses must submit reasonable documentation for each loss they seek to claim, along with a brief description of the nature of the loss, if the documentation does not make it clear, the settlement website states. Per the settlement website, class members can only claim losses that are fairly traceable to the data breach and have not already been reimbursed by another source. Such losses may include: -- Professional fees, including attorneys', accountants' and credit repair service fees; -- Credit monitoring costs incurred between February 26, 2024 and the date the claim is submitted; -- Costs associated with freezing or unfreezing credit with any credit reporting agency after February 26, 2024; -- Losses related to identity theft or fraud; and -- Miscellaneous expenses such as postage, mileage, notary, copying, fax and long-distance telephone charges. The credit monitoring services offered through the class action settlement include three years of three-bureau credit monitoring. Class members do not need to submit any documentation to claim this or the pro rata cash payment. To submit a claim form online, class members can visit this page of the Therapeutic Health Services settlement website and either log in with the unique settlement claim ID found in their copy of the settlement notice or input their information for their claim here. Alternatively, a PDF of the claim form is available to print, fill out and mail back to the address listed at the top of the first page. All claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by January 13, 2026. A hearing is scheduled for January 23, 2026 to determine whether the Therapeutic Health Services settlement will receive final approval from the court. Settlement benefits will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Therapeutic Health Services class action lawsuit claimed that the company's allegedly insufficient cybersecurity measures allowed unauthorized third parties access to patients' personal information. [GN] TRUECAR INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Fair Holdings ------------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating TrueCar, Inc. (NASDAQ: TRUE) related to its sale to Fair Holdings, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, TrueCar shareholders will receive $2.55 in cash per share. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/truecar-inc-2. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC The firm is a national class action securities firm with a track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, the firm can be reached at: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] UNISYS CORP: $625K Deal in "Caccavale" Has Final Court Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Tony Caccavale, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Hewlett-Packard Company A/K/A HP Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-00974-NJC-ST (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted final approval of a class and collective action settlement between Named Plaintiff Douglas Sorbie and Defendant Unisys Corporation. The Court certified the settlement class under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal FLSA Settlement Collective, approved attorney's fees and costs, and dismissed the action with prejudice as against Unisys. Plaintiff Sorbie brought claims against Unisys for failure to timely pay regular and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. and the New York Labor Law Sections 191(1)(a) and 198, on behalf of himself, a conditionally certified FLSA collective, and a proposed class of service delivery employees. After five years of litigation, Sorbie and Unisys entered into a Settlement Agreement purporting to settle the NYLL claims on behalf of a proposed Rule 23 class and the FLSA claims on behalf of a conditionally certified FLSA collective. Following the Court's Preliminary Approval Order, Rust Consulting received a list of names and contact information from Unisys for the 295 Settlement Members, distributed the court-approved Notice and Claims Form to the mailing list, and received Claim Forms, opt-outs, and objections to the Settlement Agreement. In this process, 92, or approximately 31%, of the 295 Settlement Members submitted a Valid Claim Form and became Participating Settlement Members. No Settlement Member opted out and Rust did not receive any objections from the Settlement Members. The Court found that the reaction of the class to the settlement weighed in favor of final approval. The Court noted that in a claims made settlement such as this, where class members are required to obtain, fill out, and submit a form before receiving any compensation, response rates of 10% or less are common. The absence of significant exclusions or objections indicated strong support for the settlement. Regarding adequate representation under Rule 23(e)(2)(A), the Court found that Sorbie was an adequate class representative and Class Counsel were adequate to represent the proposed class. The Court confirmed the appointment of Jason Abelove and Paul Pagano as Class Counsel to represent the Settlement Class and of Sorbie as Settlement Class Representative. The Court determined that the arms-length negotiations factor weighed in favor of final approval. The settlement resulted from arms-length negotiations, and Plaintiff's counsel possessed the necessary experience and ability to effectively represent the class's interests. In evaluating the adequacy of relief for the class under Rule 23(e)(2)(C), the Court considered the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal. The Court found that each of these factors weighed in favor of final approval because no Settlement Member objected to final approval on the ground that the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal were sufficiently low. Regarding attorney's fees and costs, Class Counsel requested $196,666.67 in attorney's fees, which corresponds to 33.33% of the Gross Settlement Amount remaining after payment of the requested litigation costs. The Court found that this request satisfied the percentage of the fund test because the requested fee is consistent with fees sought in similar cases. The Court also conducted a lodestar cross-check and found the hourly rate of $500 for both Abelove and Pagano to be fair and reasonable. Class Counsel submitted billing records showing that Pagano worked 107.1 hours on the Unisys portion of the litigation while at the Law Office of Paul A. Pagano, and Abelove worked 64.10 hours at an hourly rate of $500. These records equated to a lodestar of $85,600 in attorney's fees. The request for $196,666.67 in attorney's fees corresponded to the application of a multiplier of approximately 2.3 to the lodestar, which the Court found fair and reasonable. Class Counsel also requested $35,000 in litigation costs for expert fees. The Court found this request reasonable because it reflected less than half of the documented expert fees of $72,109.32 and was therefore a fair approximation of the expert fees required to conduct damages calculations relating to the claims against Unisys. The Court approved the Claims Administrator's request for $11,600 in administrative fees, finding that this fee for providing notice to 295 Settlement Members and handling submitted claims was reasonable. The Court found that the incentive award factor weighed in favor of final approval. The Court approved a $10,000 incentive award to Sorbie, finding it proportionate to the awards for individual Participating Settlement Members. Based on the award methodology set out in the Settlement Agreement, the lowest Participating Settlement Member's award was $50, the highest was more than $32,000, and the average was approximately $3,500. The Court noted that Sorbie's incentive award of $10,000 was not disproportionate, especially because the difference between the incentive award and the average recovery per Participating Settlement Member would have been even smaller had the response rate been lower than 31%. The Court found that the settlement satisfied the requirements for approval of an FLSA collective action settlement under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). Because the Grinnell factors weighed in favor of granting final approval of the settlement, the standard for approval of the Federal FLSA Settlement Collective under Cheeks was satisfied. Accordingly, the Court ordered that: (1) The Settlement Agreement was finally approved under Rule 23(e), Fed. R. Civ. P. (2) The New York State Settlement Class was finally certified for settlement purposes under Rule 23(e)(1)(B). (3) The Federal FLSA Settlement Collective was finally certified for settlement purposes only under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). (4) Paul A. Pagano and Jason L. Abelove were confirmed as Class Counsel. (5) Rust Consulting was confirmed as Claims Administrator. (6) Douglas Sorbie was confirmed as Settlement Class Representative. (7)According to the Settlement "Out of the $625,000.00 Gross Settlement Amount, the Court awarded litigation costs in the amount of $35,000.00 to Class Counsel, attorney's fees in the amount of $196,666.67, the Claims Administrator $11,600.00 in reasonable costs, and a Service Award of $10,000.00 to Settlement Class Representative Douglas Sorbie." (8) The remainder of the Gross Settlement Amount of $371,733.33 shall be distributed by the Claims Administrator with $321,733.33 distributed as the first distribution to the 92 Participating Settlement Members within thirty days of the Effective Date and $50,000.00 reserved to correct any errors or pay disputed claims. (9) The Action was dismissed with prejudice as against Unisys Corporation pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mrHAgM from PacerMonitor.com UNITED FOOD: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Lewis Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ZACKARY LEWIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 7R, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03063-CYC (D. Colo., September 30, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The Defendant store a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about its current and former members, including names and Social Security numbers. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. According to the complaint, the cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because the Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII. In short, Defendant' failures placed the Class' PII in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 7R is the largest private-sector Union in Colorado and Wyoming, representing 23,000 members in the retail, food processing, cannabis, cosmetology and other industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com UNITED STATES: League of Women Sues Over Unlawful Data Systems -------------------------------------------------------------- LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF VIRGINIA, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF LOUISIANA, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF LOUISIANA EDUCATION FUND, ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, J. DOES 1-5, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; FRANK BISIGNANO, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; and PAMELA BONDI, in her official capacity as U.S. Attorney General, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03501 (D.D.C., September 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants seeking remedy under the Declaratory Judgment Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The Defendants in this case are ignoring privacy laws to create comprehensive databases of American citizens' data, centralized at the Department of Homeland Security. The Plaintiffs in this case include a proposed class of millions of American citizens and permanent residents whose records have been unlawfully pooled into new or revised centralized records systems at DHS, as well as organizations whose members and missions are harmed by Defendants' attempts to ignore the laws protecting Americans' privacy. Allegedly, DHS, with help from the Department of Government Efficiency, is working rapidly to create precisely the type of "national data banks" the American people and Congress have consistently resisted, and the Privacy Act was designed to prevent. To that end, they have embarked on a months-long campaign to access, collect, and consolidate vast troves of personal data about millions of U.S. citizens and residents stored at multiple federal agencies. The DHS's linked data systems unlawfully pool Americans' personal data from existing systems of records housed at, among other agencies, DHS, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Social Security Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Labor, and several states' election databases. The Defendants' unlawful and ultra vires compilation of the personal data of millions into Interagency Data Systems also creates massive cybersecurity risks. It draws a bullseye for hackers to target individuals' most sensitive -- and until recently, most closely protected -- personal information, alleges the suit. United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nikhel S. Sus, Esq. John B. Hill, Esq. Lauren C. Bingham, Esq. Yoseph T. Desta, Esq. CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON P.O. Box 14596 Washington, D.C. 20044 Telephone: (202) 408-5565 Facsimile: (202) 588-5020 E-mail: nsus@citizensforethics.org jhill@citizensforethics.org lbingham@citizensforethics.org ydesta@citizensforethics.org - and - Aman T. George, Esq. Jennifer Fountain Connolly, Esq. Johanna M. Hickman, Esq. Mark B. Samburg, Esq. Robin Thurston, Esq. DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION P.O. Box 34553 Washington, D.C. 20043 Telephone: (202) 448-9090 E-mail: ageorge@democracyforward.org jconnolly@democracyforward.org hhickman@democracyforward.org msamburg@democracyforward.org rthurston@democracyforward.org - and - Jon Sherman, Esq. Michelle Kanter Cohen, Esq. Emily Davis, Esq. FAIR ELECTIONS CENTER 1825 K St. NW, Suite 701 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 331-0114 E-mail: jsherman@fairelectionscenter.org mkantercohen@fairelectionscenter.org edavis@fairelectionscenter.org - and - John L. Davisson, Esq. Enid Zhou, Esq. Abigail Kunkler, Esq. ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER 1519 New Hampshire Ave NW Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 483-1140 Facsimile: (202) 483-1248 E-mail: davisson@epic.org zhou@epic.org kunkler@epic.org UNITED STATES: Ovando Sues Over Mass Immigration Arrests in Colo. ----------------------------------------------------------------- REFUGIO RAMIREZ OVANDO, CAROLINE DIAS GONCALVES, J.S.T., and G.R.R., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, TODD M. LYONS, in his official capacity as Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and ROBERT GUADIAN, in his official capacity as Director of the Denver Field Office of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03183 (D. Colo., October 9, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Title 8 of U.S. Code (U.S.C.) Section 1357(a)(2), Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Section 287.8(c)(2)(ii) and 5 U.S.C. Sections 704, 706(2)(C). This lawsuit seeks to enjoin the Defendants' ongoing pattern and practice of flouting federal law in connection with their mass immigration arrests in Colorado. According to the complaint, militarized immigration and customs enforcement agents are ignoring the law's clear requirement to assess flight risk before making a warrantless arrest. Instead, they are scrambling to fill arbitrary quotas set by the Administration, causing chaos and terror in neighborhoods throughout Colorado. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful and harmful practices, the Plaintiffs and their families were devastated and now live every day in a heightened state of fear of again being separated, says the suit. KRISTI NOEM is sued in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenzo Kawanabe, Esq. Sean Grimsley, Esq. Bianca Miyata, Esq. OLSON GRIMSLEY KAWANABE HINCHCLIFF & MURRAY LLC 700 17th Street, Suite 1600 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 535-9151 Email: kkawanabe@olsongrimsley.com sgrimsley@olsongrimsley.com bmiyata@olsongrimsley.com - and - Timothy R. Macdonald, Esq. Annie Kurtz, Esq. Emma McLean Riggs, Esq. Sara Neel, Esq. Scott Medlock, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF COLORADO 303 E. 17th Avenue, Suite 350 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 777-5482 Email: tmacdonald@aclu-co.org akurtz@aclu-co.org emcleanriggs@aclu-co.org sneel@aclu-co.org smedlock@aclu-co.org - and - Hans Meyer, Esq. MEYER LAW OFFICE 1547 Gaylord Street Denver, CO 80206 Telephone: (303) 831-0817 Email: hans@themeyerlawoffice.com WELLDYNE RX: IBEW 150 Fund Seeks to Recover Withheld Rebates ------------------------------------------------------------ INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD of ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL NO. 150 WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLDYNE RX, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-02659 (M.D. Fla., September 30, 2025) is a class action seeking to recover the rebates that WellDyne improperly withheld from IBEW 150 Fund and the Class, or failed to secure from drug manufacturers, on certain prescriptions filled using co-pay cards. According to the complaint, Defendant WellDyne is a pharmacy benefit manager that has consistently breached its contractual obligations to IBEW 150 Fund and the Class by failing to pay them required rebates or securing rebates it was contractually obligated to obtain. WellDyne processed claims for prescriptions filled using co-pay cards on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class, but failed to remit rebates for certain such claims, asserts the complaint. WellDyne is either improperly withholding monies it received from drug manufacturers on co-pay card prescriptions that should have been paid to IBEW 150 Fund and the Class as rebates, or improperly failed to negotiate with manufacturers to secure rebates on such prescriptions, as it is required to do, says the suit. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No. 150 Welfare Fund (IBEW 150 Fund) is a health benefits fund established through collective bargaining between an electrical workers union in Illinois and an association of electrical contractors in Illinois. WellDyneRx, LLC is a pharmacy benefit management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert D. Klausner, Esq. KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN & LEVINSON 7080 Northwest 4th Street Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 916-1202 Facsimile: (954) 916-1232 E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com - and - Avi Josefson, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 875 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 373-3800 Facsimile: (312) 794-7801 E-mail: avi@blbglaw.com - and - Michael D. Blatchley, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: michaelb@blbglaw.com WPP PLC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Revenue Claims ------------------------------------------------------- More About Advertising reports that as if WPP PLC didn't have enough problems on its hands, the UK-based ad holding company is being pursued by a host of class action lawyers in the US following its surprise profit warning in July (which led to CEO Mark Read's departure) and unveiling of half year numbers in August. The lawsuits are seeking to represent investors who bought the shares in the US between February 27 and July 8. In February WPP said it expected a relatively minor decline in revenue of 1-2% while in July it confirmed an H1 fall of 4-5%, 5-6% in H2. The Schall Law Firm claims that "WPP falsely claimed to investors that its projected revenue outlook was based on reliable information. The Company also claimed that it could maintain growth while minimizing risk from seasonality and other factors. "The Company touted its ability to achieve new client wins and retain existing clients, but fell short in both categories. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about WPP, investors suffered damages." WPP shares are currently trading at 340p against a year high of 930p. [GN] ********* 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 ***