251023.mbx

251023.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, October 23, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 212 Headlines 200 BROADWAY LESSEE: Mabey Balks at Unpaid Wages, Tip Retention 3M COMPANY: Aanerud Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Abbott Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Adams Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Aguilar Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Durante Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Minton Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Mitchell Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ALUMNI OF NY: Wills Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website APPLIED DIGITAL: Shareholder Suit Dismissed BACCARAT INC: Herrera Sues Over Disability Discrimination BAKER & TAYLOR: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice BOYD GAMING: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Goodman Says BOYD GAMING: Warner Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Disclosure CARDINAL SERVICES: Derry Files Suit in D. Oregon CARLSEN MOORING: Zeno Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages CARVE MEDIA INC: Villaverde Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. CEPTON INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due December 8 CHICAGO, IL: Haney Sues Over Police Officers' Unreasonable Actions CITY OF HOPE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $8.5-Mil. CONAIR LLC: Fact Discovery in McCabe Closes March 30, 2026 CREDIT9 LLC: Fitzhugh Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California CROCS INC: Teamsters Local 237 Named Lead Plaintiff in "Carretta" CURIO EMPLOYER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Sanchez Due Feb. 6, 2026 CZS GROUP: Hernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind D.R. HORTON: Bait-and-Switch Scheme Misleads Homebuyers, Suit Says DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid DELOITTE CONSULTING: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $6.3MM DEXCOM INC: Faces Suit Over Misrepresentation of Glucose Monitors DICOM GRID: Papetti Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info DISNEY WORLDWIDE: Faces Suit Over Illegal Personal Info Collection DREYFUSS MANAGEMENT: Aguilar Class Suit Removed to D. Md. ECOWISE WELLNESS: Fetters Sues Over Gummies' False Creatine Labels EHANG HOLDINGS: $1.985-Mil. Final Settlement to be Heard January 9 ELITE SPORTSWEAR: Henry Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website EMPOWER FINANCE: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Vickery Suit EXPRESS MESSENGER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dacosta Alleges FOREST RIVER: Class Cert Hearing in Nelson Set for Oct. 23 FRETCA LLC: Faces Jones Suit Over Online Store's Access Barriers GATEWAY CHURCH: Faces Class Suit Over Misappropriation of Funds GAYLORD FARM: Fails to Protect Personal Info, DeGennaro Says GENERAL MOTORS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Lyman Due March 2, 2026 GENERAL MOTORS: Settlement Payouts for Lawyers Reached $66MM GOALS SERVICE: Faces Espinosa Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. GOGO FURNITURE: Jones Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website GRAND STREET: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Wills Alleges GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April , 2026 HAPPIEST BABY: Ford Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HAVCO WOOD: Faces Riggs Suit Over Failure to Secure Personal Info HIGHLANDS ONCOLOGY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Lewis Says HIVE RESTAURANT: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks HP INC: Parties Seek Class Cert Filing Continued to Jan. 21, 2026 ILLINOIS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response INTERNATIONAL GAME: Fails to Protect Private Info, Ziman Says IPIC THEATERS: Johnson Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. IRT PARTNERS: Faces Pardo Suit Over ADA Violation JOJU MT: Wills Suit Seeks Blind Users' Equal Access to Website KAMAKURA SHIRTS: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Jones Claims KRISTI NOEM: NTA Wins Bid for Class Certification L&A LUGO: Luna Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages LINUS TECHNOLOGY: Fernandez Sues Over Online Store's Access Barrier MCGILL FAIRLESS HILLS: Keil Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania MDL 3035: Alexander Files Second Bid for Class Certification MEDSTAR HEALTH INC: Stewart Files Suit in D. Maryland MEIXSELL THOMPSON: Ramos Balks at Unpaid Wages, Tip Retention MFB FERTILITY: Fails to Protect Private Health Info, Crawford Says MOHAWK VALLEY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 6, 2026 MONSANTO COMPANY: Chabot Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Cramer Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Eaves-Herrera Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Freeman Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Guiliano Suit Transferred to N.D. California MURRAY'S CHEESE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says NATIONAL BASKETBALL: Salazar Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit NEW PAPAYA: Faces Mendoza Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.N.J. NEW YORK: Locks Inmates in Solitary Confinement for days, Suit Says NORIMEN INC: Chavez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages OFFSPRING BEAUTY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Towns Says ON INC: Bologna Files Suit in D. Oregon PFS INVESTMENTS: Daniel Sues Over Securities Investment Scam PROCTER & GAMBLE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Sneed Due Dec. 8 PUBLIC CLOTHING: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PYRAMID GLOBAL: Faces Wood Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info QUANTUM HEALTH: Schallert Sues Over Use of Data Broker Software QUE RENTALS: Faces Villatoro Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. QUOTEWEST LLC: Metz Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California RASEVIC COMPANIES: Wohnhas Balks at Failure to Secure Personal Info REAL HEALTH: Bid to File Class Cert Extended in Wilson Lawsuit RECOLOGY KING: Mitchell Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. REGAL MEDICAL: Agrees to Settle 2022 Data Breach Suit for $49.99MM RUDY'S MUSIC: Faces Jones Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store SENTARA HEALTHCARE: Carter Seeks to Certify Plan Participants Class SIG SAUER: Sells Pistols Without Safety Features, Farrell Claims SOCIAL GAMING: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Gambling SOUTH CAROLINA: Laboard Sues Over Vehicle Collision Injuries SPIRIT AVIATION: Mleczko Sues Officers Over Share Price Drop SPRING EQ: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Mason Suit to 9th Circuit SPRING FERTILITY: Bid to Sever Class Claims Granted in J.S. Suit STEAMERY US INC: Martinez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind SUGAR CREEK: Underpays Certified Nursing Assistants, Riley Says SUNRUN INC: Filing for Class Cert Opposition Due Sept. 3, 2026 SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Kaghazchi Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. TRAEGER PELLET: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Cicero Says TRANSUNION LLC: Gutman Files Suit in N.D. Illinois UIPATH INC: Severt Class Suit Dismissed UNITED NETWORK: Bid to File Docs Under Seal Tossed w/o Prejudice UNITED STATES: Braxton Suit Seeks to Certify Class UNITED STATES: Seeks More Time to File Response in Jones US HELP UNION: Sanchez Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California VENEZUELA: Fact Discovery in Zahn Due March 27, 2026 VOODOO DOUGHNUT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Walker Says ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ********* 200 BROADWAY LESSEE: Mabey Balks at Unpaid Wages, Tip Retention --------------------------------------------------------------- CHAD MABEY and DEL MERRITT, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs v. 200 BROADWAY LESSEE LLC d/b/a CHIEF'S ON BROADWAY and AJMC SHARED SERVICES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01119 (M.D. Tenn., October 1, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant seeking to recover Plaintiffs' unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, unlawfully retained tips, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to satisfy the requirements for utilizing the tip credit to meet their minimum wage and overtime obligations to Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective by, among other things: (1) treating barbacks as tipped employees under the FLSA and paying them tip-credit wages, despite barbacks having insufficient customer interaction as part of their job duties to qualify as tipped employees; (2) requiring Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective to share tips with non-tipped employees who have no or insufficient customer interaction, including barbacks, and not permitting Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective to retain all their tips; and (3) requiring Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective to work off the clock and without pay. The Plaintiffs and those similarly situated worked for Defendants at Chief's as employees for whom Defendants claimed a tip credit, including barbacks, servers, and bartenders. 200 BROADWAY LESSEE LLC owns and operates Chief's on Broadway, a multi-story restaurant, bar, and music venue located Nashville, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq. Melody Fowler-Green, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC P.O. Box 159033 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 Facsimile: (615) 250-2020 E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com mel@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com 3M COMPANY: Aanerud Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Robert Aanerud, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01448 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Oct. 9, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12923-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin Houston Joyce, Esq. R. Bryant McCulley, Esq. Shane Hanson Hursh, Esq. ASHCRAFT AND GEREL 701 East Bay Street, Suite 411 Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 699-8280 Email: bjoyce@ashcraftlaw.com bmcculley@ashcraftlaw.com shursh@ashcraftlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Abbott Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kenneth Abbott, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01449 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Oct. 9, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12922-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brett H Hollett, Esq. Douglas Brett Turnbull, Esq. Zachary J Peagler, Esq. TURNBULL, HOLCOMB & LEMOINE 2101 6th Ave N Ste. 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 831-5040 Fax: (205) 848-6300 Email: bhollett@turnbullfirm.com bturnbull@turnbullfirm.com zpeagler@turnbullfirm.com 3M COMPANY: Adams Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jamar Adams, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01473 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Oct. 9, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12919-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin Houston Joyce, Esq. R. Bryant McCulley, Esq. Shane Hanson Hursh, Esq. ASHCRAFT AND GEREL 701 East Bay Street, Suite 411 Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 699-8280 Email: bjoyce@ashcraftlaw.com bmcculley@ashcraftlaw.com shursh@ashcraftlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Aguilar Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Javier Aguilar, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01489 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Oct. 9, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12911-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin Houston Joyce, Esq. R. Bryant McCulley, Esq. Shane Hanson Hursh, Esq. ASHCRAFT AND GEREL 701 East Bay Street, Suite 411 Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 699-8280 Email: bjoyce@ashcraftlaw.com bmcculley@ashcraftlaw.com shursh@ashcraftlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Durante Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Sara Durante, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01526 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Oct. 9, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12908-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: Minton Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Ronald Minton, Jr., et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01475 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Oct. 9, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12907-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: Mitchell Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Claude Mitchell, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01459 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Oct. 9, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-12921-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com ALUMNI OF NY: Wills Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- Laurence Wills, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ALUMNI OF NY, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05700 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.hatchetsupply.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com APPLIED DIGITAL: Shareholder Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------- Applied Digital Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 9, 2025, that on June 5, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas entered an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss a February 27, 2024 amended complaint without prejudice. In August 2023, the company and several of its executives were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit captioned "McConnell v. Applied Digital Corporation et al.," Case No. 3:23-cv-1805. Said order dismissed all claims against all defendants, including the company. On June 5, 2024, the court entered an order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice and dismissing all claims against all defendants, including the company. On September 20, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 20, 2024, Lead Plaintiff filed his opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. Applied Digital Corporation is a developer and operator of digital infrastructures based in Texas. BACCARAT INC: Herrera Sues Over Disability Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Herrera, on behalf of others similarly situated v. BACCARAT, INC., a foreign for-profit corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-24682-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 10, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://www.baccarat.com/en_us (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the locations of Defendant's physical stores. Defendant also sells to the public its merchandise through the Website, which acts as a critical point of sale for Defendant's merchandise that is also available for purchase in, from and through Defendant's physical stores. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. These access barriers, one or more of which were experienced by Plaintiff, are severe and pervasive and, as confirmed by Plaintiff's expert, include the following (with reference to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been a blind and visually disabled person who has been medically diagnosed with complete blindness as a result of trauma to both eyes. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a chain of retail boutique stores selling gifts, jewelry, home décor products, lighting, barware and dining goods, and fragrances.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodenck V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com BAKER & TAYLOR: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice ---------------------------------------------------------- SHERYL MARTIN; NELI SUJEEY; and CAMACHO-PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BAKER & TAYLOR, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12430 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 10, 2025) alleges violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("Warn Act"), the Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendant up to 60 days wages and benefits, pursuant to the Warn Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide 60 days' notice prior to terminating 500 or more employees without cause in a mass layoff, or before terminating 50 or more employees in a plant closing. The Plaintiff and the Class that were terminated constituted mass layoffs and a plant closing without the 60 days' notice in direct violation of the Warn Act, says the suit. Baker & Taylor Inc distributes hard copies and digital versions of books, videos, music, and games. The Company supplies library content, software and services through internet, traditional retailers, and institutional customers. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. 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 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com BOYD GAMING: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Goodman Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JASON GOODMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOYD GAMING CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01949 (D. Nev., October 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and violation of the Nevada Consumer Fraud Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach in September 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Boyd Gaming Corporation is a casino entertainment company based in Las Vegas, Nevada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (725) 235-9750 Email: nring@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com BOYD GAMING: Warner Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Disclosure ------------------------------------------------------------------- KIM WARNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOYD GAMING CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01861-APG-BNW (D. Nev., October 1, 2025) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against the Defendant that involved Plaintiff's and the proposed Class Members personally identifying information. On September 6, 2025, the Defendant experienced a data breach that resulted in an unauthorized disclosure, exfiltration, and theft of highly personal information in the possession and custody and/or control of Defendant. The Defendant became aware of the Data Breach on September 6, 2025, but waited until September 24, 2025, to inform the victims of the Data breach via letter. According to the complaint, the data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves. Through this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated former and current employees whose PII was accessed during the data breach. Boyd Gaming Corporation is a multi-billion-dollar casino entertainment company based in Las Vegas, Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Boulevard, Suite 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (725) 235-9750 E-mail: nring@stranchlaw.com - and - Grayson Wells, Esq. John C. Roberts, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gwells@stranchlaw.com jroberts@stranchlaw.com CARDINAL SERVICES: Derry Files Suit in D. Oregon ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cardinal Services, Inc. The case is styled as Lillian Derry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cardinal Services, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-01857-AP (D. Ore., Oct. 9, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury. Cardinal Services -- https://cardinalservices.com/ -- offers payroll, staffing, workers' comp, and HR solutions, including co-employment, tailored to businesses in the Pacific Northwest.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kaleigh Boyd, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Ave., Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 682-5600 Email: kboyd@tousley.com om jermainebrown@markowitzherbold.com CARLSEN MOORING: Zeno Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Keith Zeno, individually and for others similarly situated v. CARLSEN MOORING & MARINE SERVICES LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-04870 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 10, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Like the other Day Rate Workers, the Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours a workweek. But the Defendant never paid the Plaintiff and the other Day Rate Workers overtime. Instead, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff and the other Day Rate Workers a flat amount for each day worked (a "day rate") without overtime compensation. the Defendant's uniform day rate pay scheme violates the FLSA by depriving the Plaintiff and the other Day Rate Workers of overtime pay when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Line Handler Foreman. Carlsen provides line handling services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Phone: (713) 766-4000 Email: carl@fitz.legal CARVE MEDIA INC: Villaverde Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carve Media, Inc. The case is styled as Amanda Villaverde, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Carve Media, Inc., Case No. CACE25015404 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Oct. 9, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other." Carve Media, Inc. was founded in 1997. The company's line of business includes providing computer processing and data preparation services.[BN] CEPTON INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due December 8 -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Cepton, Inc. ("Cepton" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CPTN) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and docketed under 25-cv-08571, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or sold shares of Cepton common stock between July 29, 2024 and January 6, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Cepton securities during the Class Period, you have until December 8, 2025, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. Prior to the Company's merger with Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. ("Koito") (the "Koito Acquisition" or the "Merger"), Cepton was an electronics company focused on the deployment of high performance, mass-market light detection and ranging ("lidar") technologies to deliver safety and autonomy across the Automotive and Smart Infrastructure markets. The Company offered near-range lidars, long-range lidars and ultra-long-range lidars, automotive software and smart lidar systems that include its perception software. As of July 2023, Koito, a Japanese manufacturer of automotive lighting equipment, had invested $200 million in Cepton in exchange for common and preferred stock amounting to 30.1% of Cepton's voting power on an as-converted basis and held two out of seven seats on the Company's Board of Directors (the "Board"). In October 2023, Koito requested that the Board form a special committee to negotiate a potential transaction with Koito. In December 2023, Koito announced a bid to acquire Cepton for $3.17 per share in cash in a going private transaction. In July 2024, Cepton announced that it had accepted Koito's bid to acquire all of the Company's outstanding capital stock not owned by Koito for $3.17 per share in an all-cash transaction. According to Cepton, the Koito Acquisition would purportedly "complement Koito's existing sensor technology roadmap, while providing Cepton with the financial stability and scalability that are crucial to the commercialization of its lidar technology." The Koito Acquisition closed on January 7, 2025, at which point all outstanding Cepton shareholders received $3.17 per share of Cepton common stock in cash. In a press release issued that same day, Cepton stated that the Merger "marks a strategic milestone in the industrialization of Cepton's cutting-edge lidar technology, combining the strengths of both companies to reshape future mobility" and "[s]upported by Koito's world-renowned automotive expertise, Cepton will continue to commercialize its lidar solutions with a strong focus on quality, reliability and sustainability." The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Cepton had received a credible third-party bid valuing Cepton at more than double the Koito Acquisition; (ii) Cepton's Board of Directors failed to meaningfully explore the foregoing offer and failed to disclose its terms when recommending that Cepton's shareholders approve the Koito Acquisition; (iii) consequently, Cepton's shareholders were deprived of the opportunity to meaningfully consider whether to accept or reject the Koito Acquisition; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Investors began to learn the truth four months after the Merger closed when, in May 2025, former Cepton shareholders filed two verified class action complaints in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware against, among others, Cepton and certain of the Company's executive officers, in connection with the Koito Acquisition. In July 2025, the foregoing actions were consolidated and restyled as In re Cepton, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 2025-0519-LWW (the "Delaware Action"). Then, in September 2025, a redacted version of an amended consolidated class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint") filed in the Delaware Action became publicly available. The Amended Complaint followed a review of books and records produced by Cepton in response to plaintiffs' demands made under 8 Del. C. § 220. The Amended Complaint alleges that Cepton's Board agreed to the Koito Acquisition "at a price that was so unreasonable as to shock the conscience, and then pitched the grossly unfair deal to stockholders with a Proxy that concealed critical facts." Moreover, the Amended Complaint alleges that "the Proxy failed to disclose Cepton's receipt of—and the Board's utter failure to explore—a credible third-party bid valuing Cepton at more than double" the Koito Acquisition. The Amended Complaint further alleges that Cepton's Chief Executive Officer Defendant Jun Pei was subject to conflicts in his negotiations with Koito and encouraged the Board to recommend accepting the Koito Acquisition so as to protect his own personal economic interests at the expense of Cepton's stockholders. Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomlaw.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Danielle Peyton, Esq. Pomerantz LLP (646) 581-9980 ext. 7980 dpeyton@pomlaw.com[GN] CHICAGO, IL: Haney Sues Over Police Officers' Unreasonable Actions ------------------------------------------------------------------ VERSHAWN HANEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. City of Chicago Police Officers ALEXANDRA CASEY, Star No. 18100, and MUENCH, Star No. 18788, and CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-12437 (N.D. Ill., October 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful actions against the Plaintiff including unreasonable seizure, malicious prosecution, unreasonable search of vehicle, and retaliation. As a result, the Plaintiff sustained injuries, including but not limited to, loss special damages, humiliation and indignities, and suffered great mental and emotional pain and suffering all to his damage in an amount to be ascertained. City of Chicago is a municipal government in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward M. Fox, Esq. ED FOX & ASSOCIATES 118 N. Clinton St., Suite 425 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 345-8877 Email: efox@efox-law.com CITY OF HOPE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $8.5-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that City of Hope is set to pay an $8.5 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit over a data breach that occurred between September and October 2023. The City of Hope class action settlement received preliminary court approval on September 15, 2025, and covers the 774,038 individuals whose personal and/or health information may have been compromised during the 2023 data breach. The court-approved website for the City of Hope class action settlement can be found at https://www.CityOfHopeDataBreachSettlement.com/. City of Hope settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form have two options for monetary 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, with an additional reimbursement available for lost time, at a rate of $25 per hour, up to four hours. As another option, class members can elect to receive a pro-rated cash payment of up to $100. This amount may be subject to change based on the money remaining in the settlement fund after the payment of attorneys' fees and costs, plaintiff service awards and settlement administration costs, the settlement website shares. Class members who resided in California between September 19, 2023, and January 13, 2026 are also entitled to submit a claim for a California Statutory Cash Payment, which is a one-time, pro-rated cash payout of up to $250, class action settlement documents add. Settlement class members will have the option to receive their payouts via check or electronic payment, court documents note. In addition to monetary compensation, all class members with valid claims will receive a code to enroll in free medical information and identity theft protection from CyEx. To submit a City of Hope claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. Those who believe they may be 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, class members may 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. All City of Hope settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by January 13, 2026. The class action settlement documents add that class members who submit a valid claim will have 120 days to cash their check after the date of issuance before it expires. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the City of Hope settlement at a hearing on February 20, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The City of Hope Class Action Lawsuit alleged that an unauthorized third party accessed the cancer research center's internal systems sometime between September 19 and October 12, 2023. Per the suit, the patient data accessed during the breach included, but was not limited to, names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, financial information, health insurance information and medical records. [GN] CONAIR LLC: Fact Discovery in McCabe Closes March 30, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCabe v. Conair LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-05594 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 9, 2024), the Hon. Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. entered an order declining to effectively stay expert discovery pending the resolution of a motion for class certification which has not been filed, and for which no briefing schedule has been set. -- Fact discovery closes March 30, 2026 -- Initial expert disclosures must March 30, 2026 be served on or before: -- Initial expert reports on April 29, 2026 or before: -- Rebuttal expert reports on May 29, 2026 or before: -- All discovery closes: June 30, 2026 The nature of suit states Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Conair operates as an online retailer.[CC] CREDIT9 LLC: Fitzhugh Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit9, LLC. The case is styled as Eileen Fitzhugh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Credit9, LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-02277 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 9, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Credit9 -- https://credit9.com/ -- was founded in 2017 and offers personal loans to consumers based on their credit history and financial situation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com CROCS INC: Teamsters Local 237 Named Lead Plaintiff in "Carretta" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Michael Anthony Carretta, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Crocs, Inc., et al., Defendants, C.A. No. 25-96-JLH-EGT, Judge Eleanor G Tennyson of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted the motion filed by Teamsters Local 237 Additional Security Benefit Fund and Teamsters Local 237 Supplemental Fund for Housing Authority Employees to appoint them as lead plaintiff. The Court denied as moot the motions filed by Neil Shah and Richard Lunn, John D. Burgess, and Paula Bosler. On January 22, 2025, Plaintiff Michael Carretta filed the action against Crocs, Inc., its CEO Andrew Rees, and its former CFO Anne Mehlman and current CFO Susan Healy on behalf of all purchasers of Crocs common stock between November 3, 2022 and October 28, 2024. On March 21, 2025, Plaintiff Neil Shah filed a related action against Crocs, Inc. and Defendants on behalf of all purchasers of Crocs common stock and call options during the Class Period. In both cases, Plaintiffs asserted claims against Defendants arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as under Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. On the same day that Plaintiff Carretta filed the Complaint, Plaintiff's counsel published notice of this purported class action lawsuit with New Media Wire, informing potential class members of the ability to seek appointment as lead plaintiff until March 24, 2025. On March 24, 2025, Shah and Lunn, Burgess, Bosler and Teamsters Local 237 all filed motions for appointment as lead plaintiff in the present action, as well as for approval of their selection of counsel for the proposed class action. On April 7, 2025, Shah and Lunn, Burgess and Bosler filed statements of non-opposition to Teamsters Local 237's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides that, in any private action arising under the Exchange Act brought as a class action, the Court shall consider any motion made by a purported class member and shall appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members determined to be the most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members. The Court must follow a two-step process for determining the most adequate plaintiff for the class action. First, the Court must identify the person or group of persons entitled to the statutory presumption of most adequate plaintiff. Second, the Court must determine whether that presumption has been rebutted. The PSLRA provides that the presumptive lead plaintiff is the person or group that: (1) either filed the complaint or made a timely motion for appointment as lead plaintiff, (2) has the largest financial interest in the relief sought in the class action and (3) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Once the Court identifies the movant with the largest financial interest, it must independently determine whether the movant satisfies the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23. If the Court finds that the movant satisfies these requirements, that person or group is presumptively the most adequate plaintiff to represent the class. This presumption may be rebutted only upon proof by a purported class member that the plaintiff will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class or that the plaintiff is subject to unique defenses that render it incapable of adequately representing the class. Several individuals initially moved for appointment as lead plaintiff in this action but have since filed statements indicating that they believe Teamsters Local 237 has the largest financial interest in this litigation and, as such, these individuals do not oppose the appointment of Teamsters Local 237 as lead plaintiff. The motions filed by Shah and Lunn, Burgess and Bosler are therefore moot. Teamsters Local 237 is the only remaining party who seeks to be appointed as lead plaintiff in this action. On January 22, 2025, Plaintiff Carretta's counsel published notice of this purported class action lawsuit with New Media Wire. The notice gave potential class members until March 24, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. Teamsters Local 237 filed its motion on the deadline. Teamsters Local 237 therefore timely moved to serve as lead plaintiff. The Third Circuit has instructed that, when determining the largest financial interest, courts are to consider the number of shares purchased during the class period, the total funds the plaintiff spent during the class period, and the approximate losses suffered by the plaintiff. Of those factors, the weightiest is a plaintiff's approximate loss. Teamsters Local 237 claims a loss of $190,208 during the Class Period. In support, Teamsters Local 237 provides an accounting of its losses according to the last-in, first-out method. No other party claims to have suffered a loss of similar scale. Indeed, the other plaintiffs expressly acknowledge that their losses are smaller than the loss claimed by Teamsters Local 237. Therefore, Teamsters Local 237 has the largest financial interest in the relief sought in this action. The typicality requirement of Rule 23 requires that the lead plaintiff's claims and circumstances not be markedly different from those of other class members. Teamsters Local 237's claims against Crocs are based on the same events as all other proposed plaintiffs, that Crocs allegedly withheld information related to consumer demand for its HEYDUDE products. And Teamsters Local 237 and the others assert this conduct violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Because Teamsters Local 237's claims arise from the same events and under the same legal theory as the other plaintiffs, Teamsters Local 237's claims are typical of the class. The adequacy requirement of Rule 23 requires the lead plaintiff to be able and incentivized to vigorously represent the class claims, to not have any conflicts with the class claims, and to have obtained adequate counsel. There are no apparent conflicts between Teamsters Local 237's claims and the class claims, and no party contends otherwise. Teamsters Local 237 has also already retained Robbins Geller as counsel. Moreover, Teamsters Local 237 manages hundreds of millions of dollars in assets, making it the type of sophisticated investor that Congress sought to serve as lead plaintiff in PSLRA cases. Teamsters Local 237 is thus an adequate plaintiff under Rule 23. Because Teamsters Local 237 timely moved, has the largest financial interest in the litigation outcome and otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23, the Court finds that Teamsters Local 237 is the presumptive lead plaintiff. No party contends that Teamsters Local 237 is subject to any unique defenses or is otherwise unable to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Because the PSLRA presumption is unrebutted, Teamsters Local 237 is the lead plaintiff. The PSLRA evidences a strong presumption in favor of approving a properly-selected lead plaintiff's decisions as to counsel selection and counsel retention. The Court granted the motion filed by Teamsters Local 237 for appointment as the lead plaintiff. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CNB8VY from PacerMonitor.com CURIO EMPLOYER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Sanchez Due Feb. 6, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANA SANCHEZ, et al., v. CURIO EMPLOYER LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01790-AGS-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Butcher entered a scheduling order regulating discovery and class certification motion filing deadline: 1. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings must be filed on or before Dec. 1, 2025. 2. A telephonic Status Conference to discuss the status of the case and discovery will be held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher on Jan. 9, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. 3. Merit and class discovery are not bifurcated; however, all discovery for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification must be completed on or before Jan. 9, 2026. 4. A motion for class certification must be filed no later than Feb. 6, 2026. 5. A Mandatory Settlement Conference shall be conducted on Nov. 24, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher. Curio is an employer for several hotels within the Curio Collection by Hilton. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dlRgZY at no extra charge.[CC] CZS GROUP: Hernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CZS GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05714 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.teriyakeone.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. CZS GROUP, LLC operates as a restaurant serving a variety of dishes, including teriyaki, bento boxes, signature rolls, sushi rolls, poke bowls, sides, and salads. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com D.R. HORTON: Bait-and-Switch Scheme Misleads Homebuyers, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ FRANKIE SANTIAGO, NICOLE NERONHA, JOSEPH NERONHA, MARIA NERONHA, and ONNY JULES, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. D.R. HORTON, INC., and DHI MORTGAGE COMPANY, LTD., Defendants, Case No. 6:25-cv-01904 (M.D. Fla., October 1, 2025) alleges that Defendants operate a deceptive bait-and-switch scheme that conceals the true monthly cost of purchasing homes from unsuspecting homebuyers. According to the complaint, the deception makes D.R. Horton's homes appear more affordable than competitors' properties, while enabling homebuyers to qualify for loans on homes that cost more than they understand they can afford. To carry out its scheme, D.R. Horton works with its "preferred" mortgage lender, DHI Mortgage, to entice prospective homebuyers -- predominantly middle- and working-class Americans -- by promising them low, affordable monthly payments. In reality, the Defendants create artificially low monthly mortgage payment quotes by deliberately including only a fraction of required property taxes in their payment calculations, while knowingly excluding the remaining taxes. Through this "Monthly Payment Suppression Scheme," D.R. Horton and DHI Mortgage mislead homebuyers, including Plaintiffs, into believing their total monthly housing costs will fit within their monthly budget. The Plaintiffs seek redress for Class Members, who are all homebuyers who purchased their homes with Federal Housing Administration mortgages, including but not limited to damages, disgorgement of profits from Defendants for this illegal scheme, and injunctive relief to ensure that Defendants comply with the law, D.R. Horton, Inc. is the largest homebuilding company in the United States as measured by the volume of home sales closed and revenue. D.R. Horton constructs and sells homes through its operating divisions in 125 markets across 36 states, primarily under the names of D.R. Horton, America's Builder, Emerald Homes, Express Homes, and Freedom Homes.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey L. Newsome, II, Esq. Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Christopher J. Brochu, Esq. Pamela Levinson, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 400 N. Ashley Dr., Ste. 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 504-3301 E-mail: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com bwarwick@vandwlaw.com jnewsome@vandwlaw.com cbrochu@vandwlaw.com plevinson@vandwlaw.com - and - Kristen G. Simplicio, Esq. Roke Iko, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 1050 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 998-2299 E-mail: ksimplicio@clarksonlawfirm.com riko@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Jennifer Wagner, Esq. Shennan Kavanagh, Esq. NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER 7 Winthrop Square, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02144 Telephone: (617) 542-8010 Facsimile: (617) 542-8028 E-mail: jwagner@nclc.org skavanagh@nclc.org DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIAN JAMES NORIEGA, DARIUS LATRELL RICHARDSON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, Case No. 3:25-cv-01567-B (N.D. Tex.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time of 30 days, to and including Thursday, Nov. 6 2025, for the County to file its response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs bring section 1983 claims, alleging that Dallas County is liable for over-detentions of Dallas County jail inmates. On Sept. 16, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. Dallas, in north central Texas, is bordered by Kaufman and Rockwall counties to the east, and Tarrant County to the west. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F3505U at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: John Creuzot, Esq. Jason G. Schuette, Esq. Joseph W. Spence, Esq. DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Dallas County Records Building 500 Elm Street, Suite 6300 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 653-7358 Facsimile: (214) 653-6134 E-mail: jason.schuette@dallascounty.org joseph.spence@dallascounty.org DELOITTE CONSULTING: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $6.3MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Castro, writing for News From The States, reports that State contractor Deloitte has agreed to pay a proposed $6.3 million under a settlement to resolve claims related to last year's RIBridges data breach filed Thursday, October 16, in U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The proposed agreement, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, still needs final approval from a federal judge, but members of the class -- a total of 735,501 people, according to court filings -- could receive an estimated $100 with no documentation of identity theft needed. But those checks could quickly shrink as the settlement fund needs to pay for attorneys' costs and other legal fees. The more claims there are, the smaller the payouts will be. A Deloitte spokesperson declined to comment when reached by email Friday, October 17. The settlement agreement notes that "Deloitte denies all liability and wrongdoing," and the agreement shields the company from future litigation by people who do not send a request to opt out, whether or not they submit a claim. Tim Rondeau, a spokesperson for Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha, said via email that "The State is not a named party to this action and did not participate in this settlement." But the deal does shield the state -- by declaring it a "released party" -- and its agencies from any related lawsuits by class members who don't opt out of the settlement. "The State had a contract with Deloitte for IT and computer processing of the state programs such as food stamps," Peter Wasylyk, part of the plaintiffs' legal team, said. The case was originally filed last December, after the breach was first made public, by Wasylyk on behalf of food stamps and other public benefit recipients whose personal data was impacted. RIBridges is the unified platform made and still currently run by Deloitte which helps residents access public benefits and the state's health insurance marketplace. The data plundered by cybercrime outfit Brain Cipher in the breach included information used to apply for these services. The case was eventually consolidated with several other named plaintiffs into the current class action suit. While the state is not named as a defendant in the suit, its inclusion as a party released from future litigation is not unusual in a large class action lawsuit. In law, the concept of "global peace" often extends future legal protections to entities beyond the ones being specifically sued. Meanwhile, both parties are still waiting for updates, and Wasylyk said the court is still reviewing the settlement agreement. The agreement will need a preliminary approval and a final approval. Claims will be due before the judge issues final approval. An approximate timeline in the agreement would see the final approval hearing take place "at least 100 days after the motion for preliminary approval" is filed, meaning sometime in Jan. 2026, but that schedule could change with the availability of U.S. District Judge Melissa R. Dubose, who is assigned to the case. Claims will eventually be open for submission on a website and toll-free line run by Kroll, a firm noted for its settlement administration services. After a judge's preliminary approval, Kroll will also send out postcard notices to eligible class members, with information on how to submit claims by mail. Those postcards will go out within 30 days of the judge's preliminary approval. Anyone who received an RIBridges breach notice earlier this year is likely eligible to stake a claim. Class members can opt out of the settlement benefits if they so choose. Otherwise, they remain eligible for one of the following: -- Reimbursement up to $5,000 with third-party documentation like phone records, receipts, emails, and so on, that show evidence of harm or identity theft from the breach. -- An estimated $100 reimbursement, no documentation needed. Kroll will also handle opt-out requests, which requires class members to "send a request . . . or written notice" asking to be excluded from settlement. The deadline to opt out or submit objections is 30 days before the final approval hearing. Class members who do not submit or opt out will not receive any compensation, and they will also lose their ability for future litigation. The settlement also provides all class members, regardless of which reimbursement they choose, the option to sign up for two years of medical data monitoring from CyEx. Wasylyk said that the $100 is the baseline both parties agreed to, and that class members could see more money if there aren't enough claimants to "exhaust" the full $6.3 million. "In that case a pro-rata increase to more than $100 would go to class members," Wasylyk explained. But the settlement agreement details that these payouts are subject to "pro rata increase or decrease," meaning they go up or down depending on the final number of claims. The total $6.3 million windfall also includes attorneys' fees and other litigation costs, as well as the expense of the CyEx medical monitoring. A draft of the claim submission form clearly delineates the money that could be deducted from the total: "up to one-third of the $6,300,000 Settlement Fund ($2,100,000), plus reimbursement of costs" for the class' legal team, plus "Service Awards in the amount of $2,500 to each Class Representative," which are the named plaintiffs in the class suit. After people choose how to be paid, any residual funds would go toward the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a digital-privacy nonprofit based in Washington, D.C, after 240 days. [GN] DEXCOM INC: Faces Suit Over Misrepresentation of Glucose Monitors ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Whooley, writing for + Mass Device, reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Dexcom (Nasdaq: DXCM) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Our sister site, Drug Delivery Business News, reports that the lawsuit, led by plaintiff Kelly Grisoli on behalf of all others similarly situated, demands a jury trial for claims that Dexcom's representations for its latest-generation G7 continuous glucose monitor (CGM) were false, misleading, and deceptive to consumers. This class action comes just over a month after a judge threw out a separate class action against Dexcom relating to alleged misrepresentation of sales efforts. G7, which initially received FDA clearance in 2022, is one of the leading CGMs on the market. It features a 60% size reduction from the previous generation, the G6. It offers a 30-minute warmup period (down from waiting two hours for glucose readings to begin in the past). Earlier this year, Dexcom -- one of the largest diabetes tech companies in the world -- extended its wear time to 15 days as well. According to court filings, the nationwide consumer class action says that Dexcom marketed G7 as a superior medical device. However, the plaintiffs allege that the company sold and distributed defective CGMs, prone to dangerous alert failures and subject to FDA recall. [GN] DICOM GRID: Papetti Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHEAL PAPETTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DICOM GRID, INC. d/b/a AMBRA HEALTH and INTELERAD, INC. d/b/a INTELERAD MEDICAL SYSTEMS, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-00634-FL (E.D.N.C., October 8, 2025) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a Class of similarly situated individuals whose highly sensitive protected health information and personally identifiable information was compromised due to Defendants' failure to adequately secure, monitor, and maintain their medical imaging platform and related systems. As part of the platform, the Defendants integrated and relied on third-party software SimpleHelp Remote Monitoring and Management, which allows their platform users to remotely access onsite computer systems and patient sensitive information. However, the Defendants failed to securely implement, configure, and monitor SimpleHelp, says the complaint. This misconfiguration introduced a critical vulnerability across Ambra Health's network and the systems of its healthcare clients, allowing unauthorized third parties to access and exfiltrate Sensitive Information from the Platform. The Plaintiff and Class Members have already taken significant steps to mitigate these risks, including contacting insurers and financial institutions, placing fraud alerts and credit freezes, cancelling and requesting new bank and credit cards, and closely monitoring personal and medical accounts for suspicious activity. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts these causes of action: (i) negligence, (ii) negligence per se, (iii) invasion of privacy, (iv) breach of implied contract, (v) unjust enrichment, (vi) breach of fiduciary duty, (vii) breach of third-party beneficiary contract, (viii) bailment, and (ix) violation of the Washington State Consumer Protection Act. DICOM Grid, Inc. d/b/a Ambra Health, develops and offers cloud-based medical imaging software and services that are used by healthcare providers through its platform.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. WILKERSON JUSTUS PLLC 9 SW Pack Square, Suite 301 Asheville, NC 28801 Telephone: (828) 316-6902 E-mail: dwilkerson@wilkersonjustus.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Brook E. Garberding, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 442-9106 Facsimile: (206) 441-9711 E-mail: anderson@emeryreddy.com brook@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com DISNEY WORLDWIDE: Faces Suit Over Illegal Personal Info Collection ------------------------------------------------------------------ A.L., minor, by and through guardian Jessica Savich, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Disney Worldwide Services, Inc., a Florida corporation, Disney Entertainment Operations, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and The Walt Disney Company, a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-09429 (C.D. Cal., October 2, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and the False Advertising Law. According to the complaint, Disney engaged in intrusive and unlawful business practices by enabling the collection of personal information from millions of children under the age of 13 in the United States, without first notifying parents or obtaining verifiable parental consent. Since 2019, Disney has failed to designate as "made for kids" (MFK) certain videos, cartoons, movie clips, etc. that it distributed on YouTube that was clearly aimed at children under 13. The Disney's failure to designate its YouTube Content as MFK has facilitated the collection of personal data from children, including persistent identifiers (like cookies and device IDs) and other sensitive information (such as identity and location) by YouTube, all without first notifying parents or securing verifiable parental consent. Disney thereby generated substantial advertising revenue by exposing its audience, which includes of millions of children under the age of 13, to YouTube's targeted advertising algorithms, says the suit. Guardian Savich brings this action on behalf of her child, Minor Plaintiff, and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Disney is a worldwide media conglomerate that, among other things, produces and distributes video content through its official YouTube1 channels, some of which is directed towards children.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Alexis M. Wood, Esq. Kas L. Gallucci, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: Ron@consumersadvocates.com Alexis@consumersadvocates.com Kas@consumersadvocates.com - and - William Darryl Harris, II, Esq. Ryan Wagenleitner, Esq. HARRIS LEGAL ADVISORS LLC 3136 Kingsdale Center, Suite 246 Columbus, OH 43221 Telephone: (614) 504-3350 Facsimile: (614) 340-1940 E-mail: will@harrislegaladvisors.com ryan@harrislegaladvisors.com - and - Tiffine E. Malamphy, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 117 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91105 Telephone: (213) 723-0707 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 E-mail: tiffine@lcllp.com - and - Connor P. Hayes, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (724) 656-1556 E-mail: connorh@lcllp.com DREYFUSS MANAGEMENT: Aguilar Class Suit Removed to D. Md. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as YOSELIN MICHELLE AGUILAR, O/B/O herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DREYFUSS MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendant, Case No. C-16-CV-25-004981, was removed from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on October 13, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03381-ELH to the proceeding. The Plaintiff filed this putative class action complaint alleging that Dreyfuss has engaged in debt-collection activities without a consumer debt collection agency license. Dreyfuss Management LLC is a limited liability company.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Andrew Gendron, Esq. Timothy P. Scott, Jr., Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 100 Light Street, Suite 1300 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: 410-525-6414 E-mail: Andrew.Gendron@lewisbrisbois.com Timothy.Scott@lewisbrisbois.com ECOWISE WELLNESS: Fetters Sues Over Gummies' False Creatine Labels ------------------------------------------------------------------ DEAN FETTERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ECOWISE WELLNESS LLC and PROSPER NUTRITION LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-09753 (C.D. Cal., October 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California's Consumer Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and California's False Advertising Law, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of their Creatine Monohydrate Gummies. According to the complaint, the Defendants falsely advertised their products to contain 5000 milligrams of creatine when multiple sets of independent testing found the products contain almost none. Had the Plaintiff and the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased the products or would have paid less for them. EcoWise Wellness LLC is a limited liability company, with its principal place of business in Florida. Prosper Nutrition LLC is a limited liability company, with its principal place of business in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10106 Telephone: (914) 874-0708 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Joshua B. Glatt, Esq. Karen B. Valenzuela, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: jglatt@bursor.com kvalenzuela@bursor.com EHANG HOLDINGS: $1.985-Mil. Final Settlement to be Heard January 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that the United States District Court for the Central District of California has approved the announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of EHang Holdings Limited American Depositary Shares (NASDAQ: EH): UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ZHAN KUI ZHANG, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EHANG HOLDINGS LIMITED, HUAZHI HU, RICHARD JIAN LIU, and XIN FAN Defendants. Case No. 2:23-cv-10165-MWC-DFM CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE PUBLICLY TRADED AMERICAN DEPOSITARY SHARES ("ADSs") OF EHANG HOLDINGS LIMITED ("EHANG") FROM MARCH 29, 2022 THROUGH NOVEMBER 6, 2023, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, that a hearing will be held on January 9, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. before the Honorable Michelle Williams Court, United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, First Street Federal Courthouse, 350 W. First Street, Courtroom 6A, Los Angeles, California 90012, or by telephonic or videoconference means as directed by the Court, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of $1,985,000 ("Settlement Amount") should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up to 25% of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $67,000, and an award of no more than $2,500 to Plaintiff, to be paid from the Settlement Fund, should be approved; (4) whether payment to the Claims Administrator of reasonable and necessary notice and administration costs of no more than $200,000, to be paid from the Settlement Fund, should be approved; and (5) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, dated August 11, 2025. If you purchased EHang ADSs during the period from March 29, 2022 through November 6, 2023, both dates inclusive, your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in EHang ADSs. If you have not received a postcard providing instructions for obtaining a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Long Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of the Long Notice and Claim Form by writing to or calling EHang Holdings Limited Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net, or going to the website, www.strategicclaims.net/EHang. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a properly completed Claim Form electronically at www.strategicclaims.net/EHang or postmarked no later than December 19, 2025 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written request to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion to the Claims Administrator in the manner and form explained in the Long Notice so that it is received no later than December 19, 2025. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and an Award to Plaintiff must be in the manner and form explained in the Long Notice and received no later than December 19, 2025, by each of the following: Clerk of the Court United States District Court Central District of California First Street Federal Courthouse 350 W. First Street, Suite 4311 Los Angeles, CA 90012 LEAD COUNSEL: Yu Shi, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 DEFENSE COUNSEL: Koji F. Fukumura, Esq. COOLEY LLP 10265 Science Center Drive San Diego, CA 92121 All inquiries concerning the Settlement should be directed to: EHang Holdings Limited Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205 Media, PA 19063 Tel: (866) 274-4004 Fax: (610) 565-7985 Email: info@strategicclaims.net OR Yu Shi, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: yshi@rosenlegal.com PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: September 17, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [GN] ELITE SPORTSWEAR: Henry Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Elite Sportswear, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12483 (N.D. Il., October 13, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.dolfinswimwear.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a one-piece swimsuit on Dolfinswimwear.com. Despite her efforts, however, she was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges she was denied the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services of Dolfinswimwear.com as a result of accessibility barriers. She was disoriented when the automatic pop-up window appeared on the web page. In an attempt to add the selected item to cart, she encountered a confirmation message that was not announced by the screen reader software. She was not informed of the actions on the stage of choosing product's parameters, preventing her from purchasing any items on Dolfinswimwear.com. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Elite Sportswear's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Elite Sportswear operates the website Dolfinswimwear.com that provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 716-281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law EMPOWER FINANCE: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in Vickery Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- EMPOWER FINANCE, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation in the lawsuit entitled Samuel Vickery, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Empower Finance, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-03675-JSC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Military Lending Act and the Truth in Lending Act. On Aug. 4, 2025, Empower Finance filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation, which Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied on Oct. 7, 2025. The Court denied the motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation pending arbitration because the MLA prohibits enforcement of an arbitration agreement between Empower Finance and named Plaintiffs as a matter of law. The appellate case is entitled Vickery, et al. v. Empower Finance, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-6377, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 9, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 14, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order is due on October 22, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on November 21, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on December 31, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on January 30, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees SAMUEL VICKERY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jacob Phillips, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS, PLLC 2277 Lee Road, Suite B Winter Park, FL 32789 - and - Edwin Lee Lowther, III, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 - and - Elliot Jason Conn, Esq. CONN LAW, PC 100 Bush Street, Suite 1580 San Francisco, CA 94104 - and - Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Defendant-Appellant EMPOWER FINANCE, INC. is represented by: Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K. Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 EXPRESS MESSENGER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dacosta Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL DACOSTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a ONTRAC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-30177 (W.D. Mass., Oct. 10, 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 Dacosta was employed by the Defendant as a driver. Express Messenger Systems, Inc., doing business as OnTrac, provides package delivery services. The Company offers shipping, supply chain, fleet, messenger, regional parcel delivery, and package tracking services. [BN] 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 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com FOREST RIVER: Class Cert Hearing in Nelson Set for Oct. 23 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nelson v. Forest River, INC et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00049 (D. Mont., Filed May 23, 2022), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris entered an order that a hearing on the Motion for Reconsideration of Class Certification is set for Oct. 23, 2025. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Personal Property Damage. Forest is an American manufacturer of recreational vehicles, cargo trailers, utility trailers, pontoon boats, and buses.[CC] FRETCA LLC: Faces Jones Suit Over Online Store's Access Barriers ---------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRETCA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05711 (E.D.N.Y., October 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.kleinepsteinparker.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Fretca, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com GATEWAY CHURCH: Faces Class Suit Over Misappropriation of Funds --------------------------------------------------------------- Leonardo Blair, writing for The Christian Post, reports that members of Gateway Church in Southlake, Texas, are accusing the church, founder Robert Morris and founding elder Steve Dulin of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970. The RICO charge was made in an amended class-action lawsuit filed against the parties on Monday, October 13, accusing them of misappropriating millions of dollars in donations made by thousands of members over more than a decade. RICO is a federal law designed to combat organized crime by holding leaders responsible for the criminal activities of their organizations. In their amended complaint, initially filed a year ago, Gateway Church members Katherine Leach, Garry K. Leach, Mark Browder, Terri Browder and those similarly situated (former Gateway Church members and tithers), added the RICO charge against all three defendants. They also accused Morris and Dulin, in their individual capacities, of fraud and intentional and negligent misrepresentation. "Defendants, through their actions, have engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity as defined by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961(5), which includes at least two acts of racketeering activity within a ten-year period," the amended lawsuit alleges. The members accuse Gateway Church, Morris and Dulin of mail fraud and wire fraud. "Defendants devised and intended to devise a scheme to defraud Plaintiffs and the putative class by falsely representing that 15% of all tithe dollars would be distributed to global missions and Jewish ministry partners, and that tithers could receive a return of their tithes for any reason," the lawsuit alleges. "In furtherance of this scheme, Defendants used the United States mail and interstate wire communications to disseminate false and misleading information to Plaintiffs and the putative class, including but not limited to, written communications, emails, and online statements." The amended complaint was filed about a month after U.S. District Judge Amos L. Mazzant rejected a motion by Gateway Church to dismiss the lawsuit. The Gateway Church members allege that the defendants persuaded them and others to donate to the ministry by stating that 15% of their donations would go toward global missions and Jewish ministry partners. They say Gateway Church and Morris guaranteed they could get a refund of their donations if they were dissatisfied with how the church allocated the funds. The lawsuit alleges that they have not been able to substantiate the church's use of donations through transparent accounting. Both Gateway Church and Morris have denied those allegations and asked the court to dismiss their lawsuit, with support from First Liberty Institute in an Amicus Curiae. Mazzant rejected that effort. The church members state that their lawsuit is about holding church leaders accountable, saying it was a "last resort" after multiple attempts to achieve transparency failed. "This lawsuit is about transparency, brought by members whose concern is not money in their pockets but rather biblical stewardship," they note. "On information and belief, Defendants did not use 15% of all money donated for the intended purpose as represented by Robert Morris and Gateway leaders. Attempts to seek transparency and proof that money did, in fact, go to global missions and Jewish ministry partners have been rebuffed by Gateway elders. This lawsuit is a means of last resort and being pursued with a heavy heart." Morris, who founded Gateway Church in 2000, resigned in June 2024 amid an allegation that he sexually abused now 55-year-old Cindy Clemishire for years in the 1980s, beginning when she was 12, and continued with the abuse for 4.5 years after that. He was subsequently indicted on five counts of lewd or indecent acts with a child by a multi-county grand jury in Oklahoma in connection with that case earlier this year. On Oct. 2, Morris pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced to a six-month jail term, along with 10 years suspended. "He simply accepted responsibility for his crime from the mid-1980s and pled guilty. He pled guilty because he wanted to accept responsibility for his conduct. While he believes that he long since accepted responsibility in the eyes of God -- and that Gateway Church was a manifestation of that acceptance -- he readily accepted responsibility in the eyes of the law by virtue of his guilty plea," Morris' lawyer Bill Mateja said after Morris' hearing. "He also pled guilty for the sake of finality," Mateja added. "Not only did he want to bring this legal matter to a quick end for his own sake and that of his family, he brought it to a quick end for the sake of Ms. Clemishire and her family and he sincerely hopes that his plea and jail sentence coupled with probation brings Ms. Clemishire and her family the finality that they might need." [GN] GAYLORD FARM: Fails to Protect Personal Info, DeGennaro Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN DEGENNARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GAYLORD FARM ASSOCIATION INC. D/B/A GAYLORD SPECIALTY HEALTHCARE, Defendant, Case No. ___________ (Conn. Super., New Haven Cty., October 2, 2025) seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. As part of its business, the Defendant obtained and stored the personal information of Plaintiff and Class members in exchange for medical services. By taking possession and control of Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information, the Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect the personal information of Plaintiff and the Class. The complaint alleges that the Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their personal information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to hold Defendant responsible for its grossly negligent—indeed, reckless -- failure to use statutorily required or reasonable industry cybersecurity measures to protect Class members' personal information. Gaylord Farm Association Inc. is a health system that focuses on medical rehabilitation with locations throughout Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com GENERAL MOTORS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Lyman Due March 2, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bryon Lyman, et al v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-05786-GW-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wu entered an order granting stipulation to set briefing schedule on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: 1. The Plaintiff shall file his anticipated motion for class certification on or before March 2, 2026; 2. GM shall file any opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification on or before March 30, 2026; 3. As set by the Court's scheduling order of Sept. 18, 2026, the Plaintiff shall file any reply in support of his motion for class certification on or before April 13, 2026; and 4. As set by the Court's scheduling order of Sept. 18, 2026, the hearing on Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification is set for April 27, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. General is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9fzZgU at no extra charge.[CC] GENERAL MOTORS: Settlement Payouts for Lawyers Reached $66MM ------------------------------------------------------------ Zach Butler, writing for TFLcar, reports that over the past several years (eight years in one case), customers have been engaged in class actions against General Motors concerning oil consumption for 2011-2014 trucks and SUVs with the automakers 5.3-liter LC9 Vortec 5300 engines. These engines are found in the Chevrolet Silverado, Avalanche, Tahoe and Suburban, as well as the GMC Sierra, Yukon and Yukon XL. Owners in both cases complained that their engines failed due to defective piston rings -- one case concerns several owners in Oklahoma, while the other includes those in California, Idaho and North Carolina. Word of the settlements first emerged from Car Complaints. Plaintiffs involved with the larger, three-state settlement alleged damaged spark plugs would cause idling and acceleration problems. The case contended General Motors knew about these issues with the LC9 engine, but concealed the defects from the public, even knowing the vehicles would eventually suffer serious mechanical problems. This lawsuit against GM was initially dismissed back in 2017, but the judge allowed the plaintiffs to modify and refile their claims a total of eight times over the past eight years. The larger settlement, totaling more than $57 million, was reduced in scope from a nationwide settlement to just three states as a result. And the smaller settlement, at over $9.4 million, only concerns customers in Oklahoma, including the owner who originally brought the case. Law firm Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portiles & Miles, P.C., and DiCello Levitt LLP represented both cases, and as such will see payouts totaling nearly $66 million. What will owners get out of this settlement? Customers in the three-state lawsuit (California, Idaho and North Carolina) will be compensated to the tune of $3,380 each. The three customers who brought the class-action, specifically, will each get $30,000. However, certain conditions apply to be able to file a claim: Only owners or lessees who owned their 2011-2014 vehicles from the models listed above as of May 23, 2022. For California customers, you must have bought the vehicle new, so only original owners can file claims. In Idaho and North Carolina, customers must have bought the vehicles directly from a GM dealer prior to May 23, 2022 (though they don't carry the "new" stipulation). In the Oklahoma case, the owner who brought the settlement will receive $15,000 in compensation. Other 5.3L Vortec claimants in the state will receive just $700 from the settlement. Pragmatically, "something is better than nothing" perhaps best sums up these lawsuits from the customers' prospective. That said, GM settling for over $66 million while customers don't even see one-half of 1% of that amount is, frankly, insane -- even taking legal costs into account. GM is still facing lawsuits over engine problems, this time with the L87 To-date, General Motors has denied any wrongdoing with its Vortec engines, even while settling these class-action cases. In the modern context, it is still dealing with major engine concerns. This time around, though, it concerns the newer 6.2-liter L87 "EcoTec3" V8, which is also under legal scrutiny and investigations from the NHTSA for widespread failures. [GN] GOALS SERVICE: Faces Espinosa Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE ALBERTO MARTE ESPINOSA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOALS SERVICE STATION, INC., GEORGE RAMOS, and JUANA SCANLON, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08425 (S.D.N.Y., October 10, 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 spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a repair man, tire changer, oil changer and laborer from in or around August 2021 until in or around July 2025. Goals Service Station, Inc. is an automobile service station located at 3260 Broadway, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 GOGO FURNITURE: Jones Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website --------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOGO FURNITURE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05713 (E.D.N.Y., October 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.gogofurniture.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Gogo Furniture Corporation is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com GRAND STREET: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Wills Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- LAURENCE WILLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRAND STREET FOOD AND WINE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05705 (E.D.N.Y., October 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.fourhorsemenbk.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Grand Street Food and Wine, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April , 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK ESPINOZA, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, v. GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00853-KES-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Boone entered an order regarding stipulation to continue deadline for filing of class certification motions and pre-certification discovery: 1. The deadline for the parties to file either a motion for class certification or a motion to deny class certification shall be continued to April 3, 2026. 2. The deadline for the parties to complete pre-certification discovery shall be continued to Jan. 16, 2026. Guardian manufactures float, coated, and fabricated glass products. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RxiSWQ at no extra charge.[CC] HAPPIEST BABY: Ford Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA FORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Happiest Baby, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12485 (N.D. Il., October 13, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.happiestbaby.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of sleeping accessories on Happiestbaby.com. Despite her efforts, however, she was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges she was denied the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services of Happiestbaby.com as a result of accessibility barriers on the website. She was disoriented when the automatic pop-up window appeared on the web page. She was also unable to navigate the website effectively using her screen reading software and was ultimately prevented from completing the purchase of the desired product. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Happiest Baby's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Happiest Baby, Inc. operates the website Happiestbaby.com that provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 716-281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law HAVCO WOOD: Faces Riggs Suit Over Failure to Secure Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- JERRY RIGGS, AMY RIGGS, and CHRISTOPHER MESSMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HAVCO WOOD PRODUCTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00161 (E.D. Mo., October 1, 2025) is a class action against Havco for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated current and former job applicants and employees' personally identifiable information from hackers. On September 19, 2025, Havco filed official notice of a hacking incident with the Office of the Maine Attorney General. On the same date, it also sent out data breach letters to individuals whose information was compromised as a result of the hacking incident. According to the complaint, Havco and its employees failed to properly monitor and implement security practices with regard to the computer network and systems that housed the private information. Had Havco properly monitored its networks, it would have discovered the Breach sooner. The Plaintiffs' and Class members' identities are now at risk because of Havco's negligent conduct as the private information that Havco collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third parties. The Plaintiffs seek to remedy these harms on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was accessed and/or compromised during the data breach. Havco Wood Products, LLC, based in Scott City, Missouri, is a truck flooring company that serves thousands of customers across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jayson Watkins, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: jwatkins@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com HIGHLANDS ONCOLOGY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Lewis Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHNNA LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIGHLANDS ONCOLOGY GROUP, P.A., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-05202-TLB (W.D. Ark., October 1, 2025) is a class action to secure redress against the Defendant for its alleged reckless and negligent violation of the privacy rights of Plaintiff and other patients and former patients of HOG who had their personal identifying information and protected health information collected, stored and ultimately breached by HOG. Between January 21, 2025 and June 2, 2025, HOG had its data servers breached by unauthorized third-party hackers, who stole the highly sensitive personal and medical information of approximately 113,575 individuals across the country. HOG breached its assurance and promise to its patients that their PII and PHI would be secure by failing to implement reasonable and adequate safeguards, thereby failing to protect its patients' sensitive PII and PHI, says the suit. As a result of HOG's wrongful actions and inactions, patient information was stolen. The Plaintiff and Class Members who have had their PII compromised by nefarious third-party hackers, have had their privacy rights violated, have been exposed to the risk of fraud and identity theft, and have suffered damages, asserts the complaint. Highlands Oncology Group, P.A. is a nationally recognized cancer care clinic serving Northwest Arkansas, Southwest Missouri and Southeast Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Breean "BW" Walas, Esq. WALAS LAW FIRM, PLLC 711 W. 3rd Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 246-1067 E-mail: breean@walaslawfirm.com - and - Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa St., Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: Thiago.coelho@wilshirelawfirm.com HIVE RESTAURANT: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks ---------------------------------------------------------------- MIYA SMITH, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIVE RESTAURANT BUCKHEAD LLC d/b/a THE HIVE BUCKHEAD, a Georgia Domestic Limited Liability Company, and CHUMA KENNEDY OKEREKE, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05632-ELR (N.D. Ga., October 1, 2025) is an action against the Defendants for damages and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act as amended by the Tip Income Protection Act. The complaint alleges that Defendants committed willful actions, including: (a) failure to pay them at least the federal minimum wage for each hour they worked; (b) failure to pay them at least one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for each hour they worked over 40 hours in a given workweek, constituting a violation of the overtime wage provisions of the FLSA; and (c) seizing their tips in violation of TIPA and the FLSA. The Plaintiff seeks unpaid wages, including "kick-backs," liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Smith was employed by the Defendants from approximately June 13, 2025 to August 3, 2025 as a server. Hive Restaurant Buckhead LLC, d/b/a THE HIVE BUCKHEAD, is a restaurant and bar located in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com jrose@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com HP INC: Parties Seek Class Cert Filing Continued to Jan. 21, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY PATTISON, on behalf or herself and all others similarly situated, v. HP INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-02752-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order continuing the briefing deadlines for class certification and Daubert challenges by approximately three months as follows: 1. The Plaintiff to disclose expert reports as to class certification by Jan. 21, 2026. 2. The Plaintiff to file motion for class certification by Jan. 21, 2026. 3. The Defendant to disclose expert reports as to class certification by March 20, 2026. 4. The Defendant to file Daubert motion and opposition to class certification by March 20, 2026. 5. the Plaintiff to file reply regarding class certification and opposition to Daubert by May 1, 2026. 6. The Defendant to file reply regarding Daubert motion by May 22, 2026. 7. Hearing for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and the Defendant's Daubert motion re Plaintiff's class certification expert continued to June 19, 2026. The parties have been engaged in written discovery but have disputes on a number of issues despite extended efforts over the course of many meetings to resolve all disputes. The Plaintiff Mary Pattison commenced this action on May 8, 2024. HP is an American multinational information technology company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dfmUnK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP 120 Santa Barbara St., Suite C9 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 837-2000 E-mail: john@kristensen.law - and - Jarrett Ellzey, Esq. ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77066 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 E-mail: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com - and - David E. Wynne, Esq. WYNNE LAW PLLC 1800 Bering Dr., Suite 1075 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 227-8835 E-mail: dwynne@wynnepllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael J. Stortz, Esq. Rachel Berman, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 210 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 1522 ILLINOIS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Heather Kainz, et al., on behalf of Themselves and a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, v. Illinois Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01250-JEH-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them an extension of time, up to and including Oct. 17, 2025, to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. As such, IDOC Defendants seek an extension of 14 days to allow IDOC in-house counsel to review the history of this case and provide feedback on IDOC's proposed response. On Oct. 1, 2025, counsel for IDOC Defendants contacted counsel for the Plaintiffs who advised they do not oppose the relief requested in this Motion. On Nov. 23, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action. On Aug. 6, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On Sept. 3, 2025, all Defendants filed a second, unopposed, motion for extension of time due to the extended memorandum of law filed by the Plaintiffs. IDOC was established in 1970, combining the state's prisons, juvenile centers, and parole services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kQqY3p at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: M. Nieves Bolaños, Esq. Patrick Cowlin, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601 E-mail: mnbolanos@hq-law.com pcowlin@hq-law.com - and - Patricia A. Stamler, Esq. Elizabeth C. Thomson, Esq. Matthew J. Turchyn, Esq. HERTZ SCHRAM PC 1760 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 300 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 E-mail: pstamler@hertzschram.com sweiss@hertzschram.com lthomson@hertzschram.com mturchyn@hertzschram.com - and - Martin A. Dolan, Esq. DOLAN LAW PC 10 South LaSalle Street #3702 Chicago, IL 60603 E-mail: mdolan@dolanlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael A. Warner Jr., Esq. Hailey M. Golds, Esq. Reva G. Ghadge, Esq. FRANCZEK P.C. 300 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 986-0300 E-mail: maw@franczek.com hmg@franczek.com rgg@franczek.com - and - Denise Baker-Seal, Esq. Kara Burke, Esq. Jessica Holliday, Esq. BROWN & JAMES, P.C. Richland Plaza I 525 West Main Street Suite 200 Belleville, IL 62220-1547 E-mail: dbaker-seal@bjpc.com karab@bjpc.com jholliday@bjpc.com - and - Ambrose McCall, Esq. Robert T. Shannon, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 151 North Franklin Street, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 E-mail: AMcCall@hinshawlaw.com rshannon@hinshawlaw.com INTERNATIONAL GAME: Fails to Protect Private Info, Ziman Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ALLEN ZIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY, a Nevada corporation, and BRIGHTSTAR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01954 (D. Nev., October 13, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendants for failure to secure the personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class, following a cyberattack. The complaint relates that on November 17, 2024, Defendants discovered that an unauthorized third party gained access to certain of their internal corporate systems. Upon discovery, Defendants launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. The Defendants investigation was completed on August 21, 2025. The following types of Private Information were compromised as a result of the Data Breach: name, contact information, date of birth, government identification documents or government identification number such as driver's license number, Social Security number or other tax identifier, financial account information, health data, and other information. On October 3, 2025 - nearly 11 months after being made aware of the Data Breach - the Defendants issued a notice of public disclosure about the Data Breach and began sending notice letters to impacted individuals. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of loss of the value of their private and confidential information, loss of the benefit of their contractual bargain, out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information--which was entrusted to Defendants, their officials and agents--was compromised, unlawfully accessed, and stolen due to the Data Breach. The Plaintiff and Class Members are comprised of current and former customer and employees of Defendants. Defendant IGT is a company that produces slot machines and other gambling technologies. Defendant BGSC is a lottery operator.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Blvd, Ste. 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (725) 235-9750 E-mail: lasvegas@stranchlaw.com - and - Courtney Maccarone, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: maccarone@kolawyers.com IPIC THEATERS: Johnson Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINE JOHNSON is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Christine Johnson, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. IPIC Theaters, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-01769-ODW-DTB, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged civil rights violation. On Jan. 22, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Mar. 17, 2025. The Defendants also filed a motion to strike portions of the Plaintiffs' amended complaint. On Sept. 30, 2025, Judge Otis D. Wright, II entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss and granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to strike. The Court dismissed the case without prejudice and without leave to amend. The Court granted the motion to strike the reference to female in the first amended complaint. The Court denied the motion to strike in all other respects. The appellate case is entitled Johnson, et al. v. IPIC Theaters, LLC, et al., Case No. 25-6387, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 9, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 14, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on November 18, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on December 18, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CHRISTINE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Alfred G. Rava, Esq. THE RAVA LAW FIRM 3667 Voltaire Street San Diego, CA 92106 Defendants-Appellees IPIC THEATERS, LLC, et al. are represented by: David G. Hoiles, Jr., Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, PC 225 Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101 IRT PARTNERS: Faces Pardo Suit Over ADA Violation ------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. IRT PARTNERS L.P.; 15708 S. D. L. LLC; CK AT HAMMOCKS, LLC; and FRITANGA MONTELIMAR PLAZA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-24700-XXXX (S.D. Fla., October 13, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendants seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities who uses a wheelchair to ambulate. He is limited in his major life activities by such, including but not limited to walking, standing, grabbing, grasping and pinching. The complaint alleges that the Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of the Defendants' commercial properties and the businesses located therein. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at these properties and businesses, which endangered his safety. The plaintiff is often frustrated and disheartened by the repetitiveness of the complaints he is forced to make to employees and management at different places of public accommodation, over 33 years after the legislation of the ADA, all to no avail. Accordingly, he believes that the only way to effect change is through the mechanisms provided under the ADA, adds the complaint. Plaintiff NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO is over eighteen years of age, with a residence in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Defendant IRT PARTNERS L.P. owned and operated a commercial property at 15700 SW 72nd St., Miami, FL 33193 and conducted a substantial amount of business in that place of public accommodation in Miami Dade County, Florida. Defendant 15708 S. D. L. LLC owned and operated a commercial restaurant business within the Commercial Property located at 15708 SW 72nd St., Unit A 5, Miami, FL 33193 and conducted a substantial amount of business in that place of public accommodation in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Defendant CK AT HAMMOCKS, LLC owned and operated a commercial restaurant business within the Commercial Property located at 15738 SW 72nd St., Miami, FL 33193 and conducted a substantial amount of business in that place of public accommodation in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Defendant FRITANGA MONTELIMAR PLAZA, INC. owned and operated a commercial restaurant business within the Commercial Property located at 15722 SW 72nd St., Miami, FL 33193 and conducted a substantial amount of business in that place of public accommodation in Miami-Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 Primary E-mail: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary E-mail: jacosta@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 Primary E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary E-mail: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com JOJU MT: Wills Suit Seeks Blind Users' Equal Access to Website -------------------------------------------------------------- LAURENCE WILLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOJU MT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05706 (E.D.N.Y., October 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.jojuny.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Joju MT, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com KAMAKURA SHIRTS: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Jones Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAMAKURA SHIRTS NEW YORK CO., LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08419 (S.D.N.Y., October 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.kamakurashirts.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Kamakura Shirts New York Co., Ltd. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com KRISTI NOEM: NTA Wins Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATIONAL TPS ALLIANCE, et al., v. KRISTI NOEM, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-05687-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thompson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs motion to certify the Honduras TPS Class, the Nepal TPS Class, and the Nicaragua TPS Class. The Court further entered an order appointing Ahilan Arulanantham, Emilou MacLean, Eva Bitrán, Michelle (Minju) Y. Cho, Diana Sánchez, Amanda Young, Jessica Karp Bansal, and Erik Crew as Class counsel. The Court finds the Plaintiffs have satisfied all the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2). On July 7, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that the Defendants' termination of TPS for Nepal, Honduras, and Nicaragua violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment. On July 8, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to postpone effective date of administrative action. The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following three classes: 1. Honduras TPS Class: "All persons who have been granted TPS pursuant to the TPS designation of Honduras and who have not been granted lawful permanent residence." 2. Nepal TPS Class: "All persons who have been granted TPS pursuant to the TPS designation of Nepal and who have not been granted lawful permanent residence." 3. Nicaragua TPS Class: "All persons who have been granted TPS pursuant to the TPS designation of Nicaragua and who have not been granted lawful permanent residence." A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1cw0MC at no extra charge.[CC] L&A LUGO: Luna Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- JOSE MERCADO LUNA, ANGELICA MEZA, and ALEJANDRINA RAMOS, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs v. JOSE LUIS LUGO PEREZ; L&A LUGO ENTERPRISES INC.; MEX TEX INC.; DON PEPES ENTERPRISES INC.; DON PEPE'S MEXICAN GRILL INC.; DON PEPE'S MEXICAN RESTAURANT #1, INC.; DON PEPE'S TACO SHOP INC.; and LUGO LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00080 (M.D. Tenn., October 1, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs for Named Plaintiffs, as well as all similarly situated employees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants paid some employees, including Mercado Luna and Ramos, an hourly wage lower than $7.25 per hour (a "tip-credit wage") under the FLSA's tip-credit provision. The Defendants, however, failed to satisfy the FLSA's requirements for utilizing the tip credit to meet their minimum wage and overtime obligations to their Tipped Employees. The Defendants also violate the FLSA as to all their nonexempt employees who work over 40 hours in a workweek by failing to pay their employees all overtime compensation due, says the suit. Plaintiff Mercado Luna worked for Defendants at Don Pepe's Mexican Grill from approximately April 2024 until February 2025 as a server. The Defendants own and operate Don Pepe's Mexican Grill, a restaurant with locations in Franklin, Tennessee, and Columbia, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq. Melody Fowler-Green, Esq. N. Chase Teeples, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC P.O. Box 159033 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 Facsimile: (615) 250-2020 E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com mel@yezbaklaw.com teeples@yezbaklaw.com LINUS TECHNOLOGY: Fernandez Sues Over Online Store's Access Barrier ------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LINUS TECHNOLOGY MERGERSUB, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08397 (S.D.N.Y., October 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, and New York State General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://davidprotein.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text equivalent, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Linus Technology Mergersub, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal MCGILL FAIRLESS HILLS: Keil Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against McGill Fairless Hills, LLC. The case is styled as John Keil, Jessica Miller, Gloria Black, Jason Black, Dian Smith, Antony Rivera, Sr., Mahalia Carion, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. McGill Fairless Hills, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-05823-NIQA (E.D. Pa., Oct. 9, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land for Real Property. McGill -- https://mcgillcompost.com/ -- provides turnkey organic waste management and composting solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin S. Riechelson, Esq. COHEN & RIECHELSON 3500 Quakerbridge Road, Suite 203 Hamilton, NJ 08619 Phone: (609) 394-8585 Fax: (609) 394-8620 Email: kriechelson@crlawoffices.com MDL 3035: Alexander Files Second Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alexander v. Harris et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01128 (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 Alexander 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=lLCfnT 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 MEDSTAR HEALTH INC: Stewart Files Suit in D. Maryland ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MedStar Health Inc. The case is styled as Irish Stewart, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MedStar Health Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-03342 (D. Md., Oct. 9, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. MedStar Health -- https://www.medstarhealth.org/ -- is a not-for-profit healthcare organization. It operates more than 120 entities, including ten hospitals in the Baltimore–Washington metropolitan area of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Edmund Howerton, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 223 Duke of Gloucester Street Annapolis, MD 21401 Phone: (410) 269-6620 Fax: (410) 269-1235 Email: zhowerton@milberg.com MEIXSELL THOMPSON: Ramos Balks at Unpaid Wages, Tip Retention ------------------------------------------------------------- CYNTHIA RAMOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEIXSELL THOMPSON LLC d/b/a BARRELS AND AMPS, and DINA MEIXSELL, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01594-RP (W.D. Tex., October 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have violated the FLSA by failing to pay their bartenders and servers the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour and by allowing its managers to keep part of the bartenders' and servers' tips. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from May 2023 until December 14, 2023 as a bartender and server at Barrels and Amps. Meixsell Thompson LLC owned and operated a business establishment known as Barrels and Amps in Georgetown, Texas, which was a bar, restaurant, and live music venue. The Company closed for business in December 2024.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron Johnson, Esq. FAIR LABOR LAW 314 E. Highland Mall Blvd, Ste. 401 Austin, TX 78752 Telephone: (512) 277-3505 Facsimile: (512) 277-3254 E-mail: ajohnson@fairlaborlaw.com MFB FERTILITY: Fails to Protect Private Health Info, Crawford Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ NATASHA CRAWFORD, SUSAN COLBY and CAITLYNN SAMUEL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MFB FERTILITY, INC. D/B/A PROOV, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02850-WBS-SCR (E.D. Cal., October 2, 2025) is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a class of similarly situated persons against the Defendant for invasion of privacy, breach of confidence, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, each of the Plaintiffs and Class Members used Defendant's website, www.proovtest.com, and had their personal sensitive health information tracked by Defendant using tracking tools. However, the Defendant never obtained authorization from Plaintiffs or Class Members to share their Sensitive Health Information with third parties. At all times relevant to this action, the Plaintiffs and Class Members gave no informed consent for information about their sensitive health information to be transmitted to the third parties, including the largest advertiser and compiler of user information. As a result of Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of medical privacy; (ii) lack of trust in communicating with medical providers; (iii) emotional distress and heightened concerns related to the release of sensitive health information to third parties, (iv) loss of benefit of the bargain; (v) diminution of value of the sensitive health information; (vi) statutory damages and (vii) continued and ongoing risk to their sensitive health information, asserts the complaint. MFB Fertility, Inc. operates as a medical device company. The Company offers home PdG test kit to confirm ovulation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. Langley, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Ave. Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (954) 579-0027 E-mail: matt@almeidalawgroup.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Sonjay C. Singh, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (772) 783-8436 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com ssingh@sirillp.com MOHAWK VALLEY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 6, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Broadbent, et al., v. Mohawk Valley Health System, et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00443 (N.D.N.Y., Filed March 28, 2024), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth C. Coombe entered an order as follows: -- Amended Pleadings due by: Oct. 23, 2025 -- The Plaintiffs Expert Disclosure Jan. 30, 2026 Deadline is: -- The Defendants Expert Disclosure Feb. 27, 2026 Deadline is: -- Rebuttal Expert Disclosure March 13, 2026 Deadline is: -- Class Certification Motion due by: March 6, 2026 -- Discovery due by: April 10, 2026 -- Non-Dispositive Motions to be April 24, 2026 filed by: -- Dispositive Motions to be May 26, 2026 filed by: The suit alleges violation of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) involving collection of unpaid wages. Mohawk is a non-profit health system providing services to residents of the Mohawk Valley in Central New York.[CC] MONSANTO COMPANY: Chabot Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Brian Chabot, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01095 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 9, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-08650-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madison Tate Donaldson, Esq. THE WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 376-6360 Email: mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Cramer Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Debra Cramer, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01098 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 9, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-08651-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madison Tate Donaldson, Esq. THE WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 376-6360 Email: mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Eaves-Herrera Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Maryruth Eaves-Herrera, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01100 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 9, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-08652-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madison Tate Donaldson, Esq. THE WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 376-6360 Email: mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Freeman Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sandra Freeman, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01101 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 9, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-08653-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madison Tate Donaldson, Esq. THE WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 376-6360 Email: mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Guiliano Suit Transferred to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Anna Guiliano, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Edward Guiliano, deceased, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01104 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 9, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-08654-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madison Tate Donaldson, Esq. THE WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 376-6360 Email: mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MURRAY'S CHEESE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MURRAY'S CHEESE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05709 (E.D.N.Y., October 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.murrayscheese.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Murray's Cheese, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com NATIONAL BASKETBALL: Salazar Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL SALAZAR is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Michael Salazar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Basketball Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-7935, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). On Dec. 13, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Jan. 13, 2025. On June 12, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on July 24, 2025. On Oct. 6, 2025, Judge Jennifer L. Rochon entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice. The Court concludes that because an ordinary person would not plausibly be able to identify the Plaintiff's video-watching habits as a result of the Pixel transmissions, the Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that the Defendant disclosed personally identifiable information in violation of the VPPA. The appellate case is entitled Salazar v. National Basketball Association, Case No. 25-2478, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 9, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Michael L. Murphy, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Defendant-Appellee NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION is represented by: Hilary L. Preston, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS LLP 200 West 6th Street, Suite 2500 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 542-8400 NEW PAPAYA: Faces Mendoza Wage-and-Hour Suit in D.N.J. ------------------------------------------------------ ZEFERINO CANO MENDOZA and LUIS GARCIA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NEW PAPAYA LLC d/b/a THE GREEN PAPAYA, MARY CHERN, and WEI Y ANGXING, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-CV-16165 (D.N.J., October 1, 2025) is an action brought by Plaintiffs on their own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage Payment Law and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and Regulations. The suit arises from the Defendants' failure to pay non-exempt employees at the statutory minimum wage rate and the statutory overtime rate of time and one-half for all hours worked over forty 40 hours per workweek. The Plaintiffs allege that, pursuant to the federal and state laws, they are entitled to recover from Defendants: (a) unpaid minimum wages, (b) unpaid overtime compensation, (c) liquidated damages, (d) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and (e) attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Mendoza was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt food preparer/kitchen helper and food fryer from December 18, 2024 until August 25, 2025. New Papaya LLC, owns and operates an Asian fusion restaurant, doing business as "The Green Papaya," located in River Edge, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Giustino (Justin) Cilenti, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street, 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 NEW YORK: Locks Inmates in Solitary Confinement for days, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ARCHIBALD BENNETT and REGINALD HAWKINS, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION COMMISSIONER LOUIS MOLINA, and DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION WARDEN ANTOINETTE CORT, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05654 (E.D.N.Y., October 8, 2025) seeks accountability for Defendants' unlawful practices violating, inter alia, the New York State Correction Law and the rights of incarcerated individuals under the Fourteenth Amendment. This case arises from the City of New York's conduct of intentionally and brazenly disregarding laws that limit the use of solitary confinement at Rikers Island. Between October 8, 2022, and through at least January 15, 2023, the City of New York and its DOC employees implemented routine, scheduled periods of isolated, involuntary locked cell time, known as "lock-ins," in housing units at the George R. Vierno Center (GRVC), part of the Rikers Island jail complex. According to the complaint, under the policy, referred to internally as "25/7" or "alternating lock ins," correctional personnel locked pretrial detainees in solitary confinement for consecutive and uninterrupted periods of 25 hours or more. These stretches of solitary confinement routinely lasted for days, during which time the City denied Plaintiffs and other GRVC detainees sufficient food, potable water, necessary medications, and other basic necessities while subjecting. Plaintiff Bennett was incarcerated pretrial in the City of New York's custody beginning September 1, 2022, and until his release on or about August 25, 2023. The City of New York is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Maryanne K. Kaishian, Esq. S. Masoud Mortazavi, Esq. Callen Lowell, Esq. KAISHIAN & MORTAZAVI LLC 55 Washington Street, Ste. 461 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (347) 662-2421 E-mail: eservice@kaishianlaw.com - and - Alanna Kaufman, Esq. David Lebowitz, Esq. KAUFMAN LIEB LEBOWITZ & FRICK LLP 18 E. 48th Street, Suite 802 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 660-2332 E-mail: akaufman@kllflaw.com dlebowitz@kllflaw.com NORIMEN INC: Chavez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Alfonso Chavez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. NORIMEN INC. d/b/a NORIMEN, TORIBRO RAMEN INC. d/b/a TORIBRO RAMEN, MOCHIRON INC. d/b/a MOCHIRON IZAKAYA, and HWAL KIM, Case No. 1:25-cv-08428 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") that they and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: unpaid wages, including overtime due to improper time shaving and rounding, unpaid overtime premiums due to unlawful straight rate compensation, unpaid spread of hours premiums, unreimbursed costs for maintaining uniforms, liquidated damages, statutory penalties due to WTPA violations, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class Members their proper wages for all hours they worked, due to Defendants' policy of improper rounding and time shaving, in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL. the Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of failing to pay wages and overtime wages to Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members for all hours they worked due to Defendants' policy of improper rounding and time-shaving, in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a Cook at the Defendants' Norimen Restaurant. The Defendant owns and operates a restaurant enterprise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 OFFSPRING BEAUTY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Towns Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA TOWNS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OFFSPRING BEAUTY CO. d/b/a VERSED, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08124 (S.D.N.Y., October 1, 2025) is a civil action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its highly interactive website, www.versedskin.com, in a manner that is fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind and visually impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law. The Plaintiff attempted to access Defendant's website on multiple occasions from her residence in Bronx County, including on August 21, 2025, and August 25, 2025. During these attempts, she sought to create an account, navigate product offerings, utilize interactive features such as quizzes, and complete transactions independently. However, she encountered numerous accessibility barriers -- such as unlabeled interactive elements, lack of keyboard navigation, and incompatible screen reader functionality -- that effectively prevented her from using the Website without sighted assistance, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to revise its corporate policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that its Website becomes and remains accessible to blind and visually impaired users. Offspring Beauty Co. operates the website which offers access to skincare products, ingredient education, subscription services, and personalized product recommendations nationwide, including in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: rschoenfeld@employeejustice.com ON INC: Bologna Files Suit in D. Oregon --------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against On Inc. The case is styled as Louis Bologna, Patricia Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. On Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01852-IM (D. Ore., Oct. 9, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. On -- https://www.on.com/ -- is a Swiss sports company founded in 2010.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stanton R. Gallegos, Esq. Jermaine Brown, Esq. MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PC 1455 SW Broadway, Suite 1900 Portland, OR 97201 Phone: (503) 295-3085 Fax: (503) 323-9105 Email: stantongallegos@markowitzherbold.com jermainebrown@markowitzherbold.com PFS INVESTMENTS: Daniel Sues Over Securities Investment Scam ------------------------------------------------------------ DANE DANIEL; JAMES GURTNER; and DEANNA NEASON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JAKE LOUIS FRUGE; IAN JAMES PRUKNER; BRAD ROMERO; MELTON WEAVER; and PFS INVESTMENTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-04857 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 10, 2025) alleges violation of the Texas Securities Act. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the fraudulent scheme of the Defendants involved the sale of unregistered and illegal securities in what the Federal Trade Commission refers to as "business opportunity" scams, which promise "guaranteed" passive income realized from investing in "turnkey" internet businesses. The Defendants preyed on unsuspecting victims, including their customers, by convincing them to convert their 401Ks and IRAs into so-called "passive income solutions" offering false promises of "guaranteed" profits. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiffs and the Class Members have lost all, or a substantial portion of their principal investments. PFS Investments Inc. provides financial services. The Company offers financial analysis, investments, financial planning, and pre-paid legal services, as well as renders life, health, auto, home, and long term care insurance products. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Ready Tate, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP 235 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (314) 669-3600 Email: atate@peifferwolf.com - and - Daniel Centner, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP 935 Gravier St., Suite 1600 New Orleans, LA 70112 Email: dcentner@peifferwolf.com Telephone: (504) 523-2434 PROCTER & GAMBLE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Sneed Due Dec. 8 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN SNEED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 4:23-cv-05443-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order modifying class certification schedule as follows: Event Date Class certification motion and Dec. 8, 2025 Plaintiff's class certification expert disclosures due: Class certification opposition and Feb. 23, 2026 Defendants' class certification expert disclosures due: Class certification expert discovery April 7, 2026 cut-off: Class certification reply due: June 2, 2026 On Oct. 23, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the class action complaint. On Jan. 26, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the first amended class action complaint. Procter is an American multinational consumer goods corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7jUCaC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Bahar Sodaify, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Cortlin H. Lannin, Esq. Andrew Soukup, Esq. Sameer Aggarwal, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 415 Mission Street, Suite 5400 San Francisco, CA 94105-2533 Telephone: (415) 591-6000 E-mail: clannin@cov.com asoukup@cov.com saggarwal@cov.com PUBLIC CLOTHING: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Public Clothing Company Inc., d/b/a Derek Lam International LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-03777-PJS-EMB (D. Minn., Sept. 26, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.dereklam.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers clothing and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, dresses, jackets, sunglasses and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com PYRAMID GLOBAL: Faces Wood Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT WOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PYRAMID GLOBAL HOSPITALITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12946 (D. Mass., October 8, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and that was impacted in a cyber-incident. The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. In September 2025, private information contained in Defendant's network was accessed by the unauthorized third-party. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' private information secure. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the private information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. Pyramid Global Hospitality is a hospitality group that operates in hotels across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 260 Peachtree Street, NW Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com QUANTUM HEALTH: Schallert Sues Over Use of Data Broker Software --------------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE SCHALLERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUANTUM HEALTH, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-09621 (C.D. Cal., October 8, 2025) arises from the Defendant's installation and use of data broker software without obtaining consent in violation of the California Trap and Trace Law. According to the complaint, Quantum Health uses data broker software on its website, https://quantum-health.com, to secretly collect data about Plaintiff and other website visitors' computer, location, and browsing habits. The data broker software then compiles this data and correlates that data with extensive external records it already has about most Californians in order to learn the identity of the Website user. The Defendant has partnered with at least one registered California data broker in order to deanonymize and develop clandestine user profiles on otherwise anonymous visitors to the Website. The Defendant has done this by installing at least one Data Broker Software Development Kit on the Website, alleges the suit. Quantum Health, Inc. operates as a healthcare navigation company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com eshapiro@taulersmith.com QUE RENTALS: Faces Villatoro Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- Yeison Villatoro, on behalf of himself and all other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Que Rentals Inc., A Quality Party and Linen Inc., and Samuel Danziger, Defendants, Case No. 7:25-cv-08113 (S.D.N.Y., October 1, 2025) is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated workers currently and formerly employed in Defendants' Spring Valley-based business. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay proper minimum and overtime wages, failure to pay "spread of hours" compensation, failure to provide accurate wage notices, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff regularly worked seven days per week for Defendants from approximately November 2021 to August 28, 2024, with the exception of an approximate three month leave period in 2022. Throughout this time period, the Plaintiff drove vehicles transporting party rental items to and from Defendants' Spring Valley location. The Plaintiff also performed a range of other manual labor including loading and unloading items and working in Defendants' Spring Valley warehouse, the complaint says. Que Rentals Inc. is a party equipment rental service in Spring Valley, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert McCreanor, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT D. MCCREANOR, P.L.L.C. 245 Saw Mill River Road, Suite 106 Hawthorne, NY 10532 Telephone: (845) 202-1833 E-mail: rmccreanor@rdmclegal.com QUOTEWEST LLC: Metz Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quotewest, LLC. The case is styled as Kim Metz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quotewest, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-02909-CSK (E.D. Cal., Oct. 9, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Quotewest, LLC -- https://www.quotewest.com/ -- offers cheap car insurance comparisons.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E., Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com RASEVIC COMPANIES: Wohnhas Balks at Failure to Secure Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- DYLAN WOHNHAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE RASEVIC COMPANIES, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03341 (D. Md., October 8, 2025) is a class action arising out of Defendant Rasevic's failure to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. According to a "Notice of Data Incident," the Defendant provided to Maine's Attorney General, a data breach occurred on its network between approximately March 28, 2025, and April 2, 2025, but remained, undiscovered, until April 2, 2025. Due to Defendant's data security failures which resulted in the data breach, cybercriminals were able to target Defendant's computer systems and exfiltrate highly sensitive and personally identifiable information belonging to Plaintiff and other similarly situated customers. As a result of this data breach, the Plaintiff's and Class members' private information of remains in the hands of those cybercriminals, says the suit. The Rasevic Companies provides dust control and land development, snow removal, landscape and lawn maintenance service, professional holiday decorating and building new custom homes and remodel existing homes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sonjay Singh, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: ssingh@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com - and - Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com REAL HEALTH: Bid to File Class Cert Extended in Wilson Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIN WILSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. REAL HEALTH ROOTS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03808-SEG (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Geraghty entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to extend the deadline for filing a motion for class certification. The Court will set a deadline for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification upon the parties' filing of a joint preliminary report and discovery plan. The Plaintiff argues that the deadline for filing a motion for class certification should be extended because Plaintiff requires additional time to conduct discovery before filing a motion for class certification. The Court agrees. Because the Defendant appeared in the case less than one month ago, the 90-day deadline set by Local Rule 23.1(B) would not provide Plaintiff a meaningful opportunity to conduct discovery before moving to certify a class. Accordingly, the Court finds good cause for extending the class certification deadline. The Plaintiff Erin Wilson filed this putative class action against Defendant Real Health Roots, LLC, on July 9, 2025. On Sept. 4, 2025, the Defendant appeared and answered the complaint. It has not opposed the instant motion. Real specializes in advanced treatments for Type 2 diabetes and more. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wy5hnz at no extra charge.[CC] RECOLOGY KING: Mitchell Class Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JASMINE MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RECOLOGY KING COUNTY INC., a Washington profit corporation; and DOES 1 20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Defendants, Case No. 25-2-25793-2 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of King to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on October 8, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01948 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff has alleged that she and potentially dozens of Washington employees were subject to one or more oral covenants, agreements, or contracts that restricted, restrained, or prohibited them from having an additional job supplementing their income by working for another employer, working as an independent contractor or being self-employed. Recology King County Inc. is a subsidiary of Recology Inc., a 100% employee-owned integrated resource recovery company.[BN] Defendant Recology King County is represented by: Douglas E. Smith, Esq. Annie E. Reuben, Esq. Laura Davis, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3122 Telephone: (206) 623-3300 Facsimile: (206) 447-6965 E-mail: desmith@littler.com areuben@littler.com ladavis@littler.com REGAL MEDICAL: Agrees to Settle 2022 Data Breach Suit for $49.99MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Regal Medical Group Inc. has agreed to pay a $49,995,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit over a December 2022 data breach. The Regal Medical Group class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on August 1, 2025, and covers over 3.4 million individuals in the United States whose personal and/or health information may have been compromised during the late 2022 data breach. The court-approved website for the Regal Medical Group class action settlement can be found at https://www.RegalMedicalSettlement.com/. Regal Medical Group settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form have several options for reimbursement. Each eligible class member can receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment of between approximately $68 and $357, based on the number of valid claims that are submitted. Further, class members who submit valid claims are also entitled to three years of free three-bureau credit monitoring services from CyEx. Additionally, those who submit documentation of time lost remedying issues related to the data breach, including time spent addressing complications due to identity fraud, theft, bank fees, and other related matters, may receive an additional one-time cash payment of between roughly $30 and $210, based on the amount of time lost. Class members who also submit documentation of money lost remedying issues related to the data breach may file another claim to receive a one-time cash reimbursement of up to $10,000 in fraud/out-of-pocket costs, the settlement website shares. The settlement documents detail that Regal Medical Group class members can elect to receive any/ all payment options via check or electronic payment. To submit a Regal Medical Group 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 copy of the claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the address listed on the form. Regal Medical Group 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 120 days to cash their checks after the dates of issuance before they expire. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Regal Medical Group settlement at a hearing on January 28, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Regal Medical Group class action lawsuit alleged that the California healthcare provider failed to protect the private information of patients from a data breach that occurred on December 1, 2022. Per the suit, the data accessed during the breach included, but was not limited to, patient names, dates of birth, addresses, Social Security numbers, health information, health insurance plans and phone numbers. [GN] RUDY'S MUSIC: Faces Jones Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RUDY'S MUSIC SOHO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08417 (S.D.N.Y., October 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.rudysmusic.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Rudy's Music Soho, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com SENTARA HEALTHCARE: Carter Seeks to Certify Plan Participants Class ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACEY CARTER, et al., v. SENTARA HEALTHCARE FIDUCIARY COMMITTEE, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00016-JKW-LRL (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Jamar K. Walker entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court certifies the following class: "All Sentara 403(b) Savings Plan participants with a balance in the Principal Guaranteed Interest Balance Contract (GIBC) at any time since Jan. 8, 2018, along with their beneficiaries and alternate payees of record, excluding members of the Sentara Healthcare Fiduciary Committee and any directors and officers of Sentara Health with fiduciary responsibility for the Plan's investments." The Court appoints the Plaintiffs Tracey Carter and Bonny Davis as class representatives and the plaintiffs' counsel of record from Engstrom Lee LLC and the James White Law Firm as class counsel. On or before Oct. 23, 2025, the parties shall submit a proposed notice to be provided to class members and a proposal and justification regarding the means by which notice will be provided. Based on the evidence presented, the Court finds that the plaintiffs satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3). Sentara is a not-for-profit integrated healthcare system based in Norfolk, Virginia. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WnEpJJ at no extra charge.[CC] SIG SAUER: Sells Pistols Without Safety Features, Farrell Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL FARRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIG SAUER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05701 (E.D.N.Y., October 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the New York Consumer Protection Act and the New York General Business Law. The case arises from the Defendant's design, production, and selling of a defective pistol, the Sig Sauer P320. According to the complaint, the defect has three components: (1) the P320 is effectively fully energized and ready to fire the instant that a round is chambered; (2) the P320 has a minimal trigger pull because it is short and lightweight; and (3) the P320 lacks any external safety features. The Defendant does not tell consumers about the P320's defect nor does it warn consumers that the P320 is extraordinarily dangerous compared to similar pistols. As a result, P320 users have experienced a slew of unintended discharges across the country. Sig Sauer, Inc. is a firearms manufacturer, headquartered in Newington, New Hampshire. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Dameron, Esq. Clinton J. Mann, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 945-7110 Email: matt@williamsdirks.com cmann@williamsdirks.com - and - Todd C. Werts, Esq. LEAR WERTS LLP 103 Ripley Street Columbia, MO 65201 Telephone: (573) 875-1991 Facsimile: (573) 279-0024 Email: werts@learwerts.com SOCIAL GAMING: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Gambling ------------------------------------------------------------ Jim Phillips of Logan Daily News reports that a Logan resident has filed a class action lawsuit in federal court against an online gaming company, on behalf of herself and other Ohio residents who have lost money by gambling on the site. Brenda Krivatch's lawsuit was filed on October 14 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. It alleges that Social Gaming LLC, doing business as Fortune Coins, is an illegal gambling site under Ohio law, which attempts to disguise this fact by describing itself as a "sweepstakes" or "social gaming" site, and which has misled customers -- including Krivatch -- into thinking it is legal in Ohio. "Plaintiff did not know Fortune Coins was illegal gambling in Ohio," the complaint alleges. "Based on Fortune Coins' advertising and website, Plaintiff thought Fortune Coins was legal in the state of Ohio, among other things. Had she known the truth, she would not have participated in online gambling on fortunecoins.com." The suit further claims that the company advertises in Ohio and sends email promotions to Ohio residents, and does not list the state as an excluded territory. And though there is "widely available technology" that allows a gambling site to detect what state a website visitor is in, and prevent them from using the website if they are in a state where online gambling is illegal, Fortune Coins "made an affirmative decision not to use that technology for the Fortune Coins website." The complaint includes a section that discusses the problem of online gambling, and predicts that "The United States may be on the cusp of an explosive growth of gambling addiction akin to the opioid crisis, fueled by online access to gambling websites." It adds that online gambling addiction "has massive social consequences, resulting in the drain on state government funds to address addiction, the rise in teenage online gambling addiction, and the rise in crime associated with online gambling addiction." According to the complaint, Fortune Coins is running a variation on a scheme popular in the early 2000s, in which people would try to get around laws against gambling by offering it through so-called "Internet cafes." These sites would sell such things as Internet time or long-distance phone minutes, and award buyers with free "sweepstakes" points for every dollar they spent. The buyer could then use those points to play casino-style slot machine games for cash prizes. The idea was to separate the payment of money from the gambling, but according to the complaint, "Courts and state law enforcement officials in the United States repeatedly determined that such tactics were an obvious pretext and cover for illegal gambling." The suit alleges that like the Internet cafes, Fortune Coins is also trying to separate the payment of money from the gambling, by offering a two-tiered system of virtual coins, both of which function like chips in a casino. One type of coin -- "Gold Coins" -- can be used to play games, but can win only more Gold Coins; and can't be redeemed for cash or prizes. The second type -- "Fortune Coins" -- can also be used for gaming, and can be redeemed for prizes and money. And while the company claims no purchase is required to obtain Fortune Coins, the two types of coin are sold as a package, so that a person buying the no-cash-value Gold Coins also receives Fortune Coins -- supposedly as a "bonus." Other evidence that the true purpose of the website is gambling, the complaint says, includes the "casino-like atmosphere and imagery" on the site, and the fact that unlike a traditional business sweepstakes that runs for a few weeks or months, Fortune Coins' purported sweepstakes "runs perpetually." It also notes that "most if not all users of the website largely ignore their ample supply of Gold Coins in favor of playing Fortune Coins," which is a clear indication that this is mainly what they're paying for. People who use the Fortune Coins website agree to contract terms that the lawsuit indicates include an arbitration clause and a class action waiver protecting the company from lawsuits like Krivatch's. However, the complaint argues, all purported contract agreements with the company are worthless for a number of reasons. These include the fact that in Ohio, contracts that involve payment in the form of a wager are void; and that customers were "fraudulently induced into entering these contracts" by being falsely told that fortunecoins.com was legal in Ohio. The lawsuit asks the court to declare that it is a proper class action, with Krivatch as class representative and her attorneys as class counsel; to declare that fortunecoins.com is illegal gambling in Ohio; to issue a permanent injunction barring the operation of fortunecoins.com in Ohio; to order the company to refund all wages lost by the class members and pay damages; as well as the attorney fees and costs of the suit. The complaint states that the amount in controversy for the class represented in the suit exceeds $5 million. [GN] SOUTH CAROLINA: Laboard Sues Over Vehicle Collision Injuries ------------------------------------------------------------ ADRIAN WARD LABOARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMBER TSIMBOS LYNCH, Defendant, Case No. 2025-CP-10 (S.C. Comm. Pl., October 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for carelessness, negligence, reckless, willful and wanton conduct. The Plaintiff brings this suit against the Defendant for her negligent acts which resulted to a vehicle collision with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff suffered permanent physical injuries, incurred medical bills, sustained emotional and physical pain and suffering, suffered mental anguish, fear, apprehension and anxiety, and loss of enjoyment of life. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Milton D. Stratos II, Esq. JOYE LAW FIRM, LLP 5861 Rivers Ave. North Charleston, SC 29406 Telephone: (843) 725-4269 Facsimile: (843) 529-9180 Email: mstratos@joyelawfirm.com SPIRIT AVIATION: Mleczko Sues Officers Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------ TERRANCE MLECZKO and TM DEFENSE SOLUTIONS LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DAVID DAVIS and FREDERICK S. CROMER, Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-61959 (S.D. Fla., September 30, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Spirit Aviation Holdings, Inc. securities between May 28, 2025 and August 29, 2025, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Spirit's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Spirit was at substantial risk of being unable to meet certain of its debt and other financial obligations; (ii) Spirit was also at substantial risk of being forced to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection within a mere matter of months; (iii) accordingly, Defendants had overstated enhancements to Spirit's financial condition, liquidity, and overall business and operations, while simultaneously downplaying the negative impacts of adverse market conditions on the same; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Following the foregoing disclosures and developments, Spirit's stock price fell $0.71 per share, or 58.2%, to close at $0.51 per share on September 3, 2025 -- the first day that the Company's common stock began trading on the over-the-counter market under the ticker symbol "FLYYQ." As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiffs and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Spirit Aviation Holdings, Inc. is the parent company of Spirit Airlines, LLC, an ultra low-cost American airline that provides passenger air transportation services for destinations throughout the U.S., Latin America, and the Caribbean. David Davis served as Spirit's President and Chief Executive Officer, while Frederick S. Cromer served as Spirit's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq. Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 2103 N. Commerce Parkway Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 515-0123 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: nczipperian@millershah.com jagoldstein@millershah.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com SPRING EQ: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Mason Suit to 9th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- SPRING EQ LLC is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Robert Mason, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Spring EQ LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-01833-MWC-AGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending at least two text messages to the Plaintiff's phone number without prior express consent. On Aug. 20, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Michelle Williams granted on Sept. 25, 2025. The Court certifies the following class for the Plaintiff's cause of action: Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United States who, within the four years prior to the filing of this action: (1) were sent a text message by or on behalf of the Defendant; (2) more than one time within any 12-month period; (3) where the persons cellular telephone number had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days; (4) for the purpose of selling the Defendant's products and services; and (5) whose cellular telephone number the Defendant obtained solely from LendingTree. Excluded from the class are the Defendant, any entity in which the Defendant has a controlling interest, and the Defendant's officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, employees, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. Also excluded from the class is any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this matter, and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff. Plaintiff Robert Mason is appointed as class representative, and Tycko and Zavareei LLP, Edelsberg Law PA, and Shamis and Gentile PA are hereby appointed as class counsel to represent the interests of the class and the subclass. The appellate case is entitled Robert Mason v. Spring EQ LLC, Case No. 25-6388, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 9, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent ROBERT MASON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Gemma Seidita, Esq. Sabita J. Soneji, Esq. TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Email: gseidita@tzlegal.com ssoneji@tzlegal.com - and - Christopher E. Berman, Esq. Garrett O. Berg, Esq. SHAMIS AND GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com garrett@gberglega1.com Defendant-Petitioner SPRING EQ LLC is represented by: Michael A. Lombardo, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 3800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 995-6333 - and - Natalie A. Willis, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 - and - Paul J. Watford, Esq. Livia M. Kiser, Esq. Michael D. Roth, Esq. Kelly L. Perigoe, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Email: pwatford@kslaw.com kperigoe@kslaw.com SPRING FERTILITY: Bid to Sever Class Claims Granted in J.S. Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.S., v. SPRING FERTILITY HOLDINGS ET AL., Case No. 5:24-cv-07374-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. Plaintiff V.R.'s putative class definition, which encompasses “all LinkedIn account holders in the United States who booked a medical appointment on www.citymd.com” Spring is a private company specializing in fertility and outpatient services. A copy of the Court's order dated Sept 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=satovv at no extra charge.[CC] STEAMERY US INC: Martinez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STEAMERY US INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08304 (S.D.N.Y., October 8, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on October 6, 2025, in an attempt to purchase an Iron Steamer from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. She was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, the complaint relates. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Steamery US Inc. operates the website that offers clothing care products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal SUGAR CREEK: Underpays Certified Nursing Assistants, Riley Says --------------------------------------------------------------- SYLENA RILEY, individually and for others similarly situated v. SUGAR CREEK REST, INC. d/b/a QUALITY LIFE SERVICES, Case No. 2:25-cv-01564 (W.D. Pa., October 8, 2025) is a class and collective action against the Defendant seeking to recover Plaintiff's unpaid overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. The complaint alleges that Defendant's labor policies deprive Plaintiff Riley and the other hourly employees of premium overtime wages of at least one and a half times their regular rates of pay -- based on all remuneration -- for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff worked for QLS as a certified nursing assistant from approximately July 2018 until August 2025. Sugar Creek Rest, Inc., d/b/a Quality Life Services, operates a home healthcare facility, a hospice facility, as well as skilled nursing facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: 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 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. William F. Goodrich, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, PC 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412) 766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com bill@goodrichandgeist.com - and - William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com SUNRUN INC: Filing for Class Cert Opposition Due Sept. 3, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEGGY BANKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUNRUN INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-07877-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Tigar entered an order re revising schedule as follows: Event Deadline Expert disclosures: Nov. 19, 2025 Mediation deadline: Jan. 19, 2026 Dispositive motion hearing: June 25, 2026 Last day to file motion for class July 30, 2026 Certification: Last day to file opposition to class Sept. 3, 2026 Certification: Last day to file reply in further support Oct. 1, 2026 of class certification: Sunrun is an American provider of photovoltaic systems and battery energy storage products, primarily for residential customers. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g3swiK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mount Carmel Avenue Glenside, PA 19038 Telephone: (215) 225-5529 Facsimile: (888) 329-0305 E-mail: a@perronglaw.com - and - Dana J. Oliver, Esq. OLIVER LAW CENTER, INC. 8780 19th Street #559 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Telephone: (855)384-3262 Facsimile: (888)570-2021 E-mail: dana@danaoliverlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Esq. Glenn T. Graham, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 7 Giralda Farms, Suite 340 Madison, NJ 07940 Telephone: (973) 503-5900 Facsimile: (973) 503-5950 E-mail: lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com ggraham@kelleydyre.com SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Kaghazchi Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case MEHRAN KAGHAZCHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2503439, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on October 10, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02679 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC is a trucking company headquartered in Arizona. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Paul S. Cowie, Esq. John D. Ellis, Esq. Alexis S. Cherry, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 Email: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com jellis@sheppardmullin.com acherry@sheppardmullin.com TRAEGER PELLET: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Cicero Says ----------------------------------------------------------- AARON CICERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff V. TRAEGER PELLET GRILLS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00881 (D. Utah, October 2, 2025) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint asserts that the Defendant misclassified Plaintiff as exempt and failed to pay him both the minimum wage and overtime. The Defendant also misclassified other brand ambassadors and similar employees as exempt across the country and likewise denied them their proper minimum wage and overtime compensation, says the suit. Plaintiff Cicero began working for Defendant as a brand ambassador in approximately June of 2024 and remains employed with Defendant. He performed work related to promoting grills manufactured by Defendant. Traeger Pellet Grills, LLC manufactures and sells grills and cooking accessories across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: April L. Hollingsworth, Esq. HOLLINGSWORTH LAW OFFICE, LLC 40 South 600 East Salt Lake City, UT 84102 - and - Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq. John Neuman, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC 4151 Southwest Freeway, Suite 515 Houston, TX 77027 Telephone: (281) 885-8844 Facsimile: (281) 885-8813 E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com TRANSUNION LLC: Gutman Files Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TransUnion, LLC. The case is styled as Eric Gutman, David Hilty, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TransUnion, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-12377 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 9, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. TransUnion LLC -- https://www.transunion.com/ -- is an American consumer credit reporting agency.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com UIPATH INC: Severt Class Suit Dismissed --------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Severt et al v. UiPath, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-07908-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Denise Cote entered an order granting the Defendants' June 26, 2025, motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment for the defendants and close the case. The TAC fails to plausibly allege that any of the four statements at issue on this motion were material misrepresentations, or that they were made with the requisite scienter the TAC also does not allege particularized facts giving rise to a strong inference that Dines acted with scienter. The TAC does not identify any documents that Dines saw that contradicted his October 2021 statement. There is no indication that Dines believed or was informed that Microsoft offered unattended Robot functionality that was comparable to or competitive with UiPath’s as of October 2021. The TAC fails to plausibly plead that Dines’ statement was false or misleading. To the contrary, it is a central theme of the TAC and the documents it incorporates that UiPath was significantly focused on relatively complex unattended Robots, which catered to professional users, while Microsoft focused on relatively simple attended Robots. Given the documents now incorporated into the TAC, it is also not possible to find that the TAC adequately pleads scienter as to the March 2022 statements. The lead plaintiff argues that the TAC adequately alleges scienter because Dines and Gupta were knowledgeable about Microsoft’s competition with UiPath. This observation has little weight, as Dines and Gupta did not deny that UiPath faced a significant competitive threat from Microsoft. With respect to the actual contents of the March 2022 statements that are at issue here, the TAC fails to plead particularized facts that give rise to a strong inference that Dines or Gupta acted with scienter. The putative class action brings claims of securities fraud against UiPath, Inc. (“UiPath”) and two of its senior executives. The lead plaintiff alleges that the defendants artificially inflated the price of UiPath’s stock by misrepresenting difficulties that UiPath was encountering in competing with Microsoft. UiPath is a provider of enterprise robotic process automation (RPA) software solutions. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Oct. 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vagdfj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Max R. Schwartz, Esq. Jeffrey P. Jacobson, Esq. Lana V. Levin, Esq. Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq. Jessica M. Casey, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: mschwartz@scott-scott.com The Defendants are represented by: Edmund Polubinski, Esq. Daniel Schwartz, Esq. Patrick Blakemore, Esq. Marie Killmond, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 450-4695 E-mail: edmund.polubinski@davispolk.com UNITED NETWORK: Bid to File Docs Under Seal Tossed w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anthony Randall v. United Network for Organ Sharing, Case No. 2:23-cv-02576-MEMF-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's application to file documents under seal in support of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Should the Defendant wish for these documents to be filed under seal, it is required to file the supporting declaration within 10 days, the Court says. It appears to the Court that the application is not in compliance with L.R. 79-5.2.2(b), which governs documents designated by another as confidential pursuant to a Protective Order. The Rules require that the Designating Party—the "person that designated the material confidential" -- file its own declaration "establishing that all or part of the designated material is sealable, by showing good cause or demonstrating compelling reasons why the strong presumption of public access in civil cases should be overcome, with citations to the applicable legal standard." The Defendants have not done so here: They have filed no declaration in support of the Application. Without such a declaration, this Court cannot determine whether good cause exists to grant the Application. United is a non-profit scientific and educational organization that administers the only Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zHMkBQ at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Braxton Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENAN BRAXTON, et al., v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03534-ACR (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class as to all claims defined as follows: "All people financially unable to obtain adequate representation who are on supervised release or parole for D.C. Code offenses and who are or will be detained solely by the Parole Commission and are pending action by the Parole Commission at midnight on Oct. 1, 2025, or later." The Plaintiffs further move the Court to enter an order: -- Certifying Kenan Braxton, Michael Dunbar and Stanley Petty as class representatives. -- Appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel from the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia as class counsel. United is the parole board responsible for granting or denying parole to, and supervising the parole releases of, incarcerated individuals who fall under its jurisdiction. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WWgjTv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Zoe Friedland, Esq. Hanna Perry, Esq. Teressa Hamsher, Esq. Megan Yan, Esq. PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 633 3rd St. N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 824-2198 Facsimile: (202) 824-2093 E-mail: hperry@pdsdc.org zfriedland@pdsdc.org thamsher@pdsdc.org myan@pdsdc.org UNITED STATES: Seeks More Time to File Response in Jones -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VONDA JONES; ROCHELLE ST. JOHN; CHRISTINA DAVIES; MARIA GARCIA PAGAN, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; LORI CHAVEZ DEREMER, in her official capacity as Secretary of Labor; EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION; LORI FRAZIER BEARDEN, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Employment and Training Administration; U.S. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; RUSSELL BOUGHT, Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:25-cv-12653-NMG (D. Mass.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time of 28 days, up to and including Nov. 20, 2025, to file a response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which is currently due on Oct. 13, 2025. On Sept. 18, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint, alleging that funding for the Senior Community Service Employment Program had been unreasonably delayed. On Sept. 29, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and a memorandum of law in support of that motion. On Sept. 30, 2025, the Defendant Department of Labor published Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 16-24, Change 1, available at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/advisories/tegl-16-24-change-1. The letter provides new instructions and funding allotments for SCSEP national grantees, and states that the Guidance Letter "allots the full year grant period for National Grantees totaling $307,072,086." On Oct. 1, 2025, the Parties filed a Joint Notice advising the Court that, in light of the Guidance Letter, "Counsel for Plaintiffs are reviewing the Guidance Letter and considering appropriate next steps. As such, they do not intend to file a motion for emergency relief on this date. The parties will engage in further motions practice after meeting and conferring, as appropriate." The Department of Labor administers federal labor laws to guarantee workers' rights to fair, safe, and healthy working conditions. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GN0sWk at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Leah B. Foley, Esq. Shawna Yen, Esq. U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE John J. Moakley U.S. Courthouse 1 Courthouse Way, Suite 9200 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 748-3100 E-mail: Shawna.Yen@usdoj.gov US HELP UNION: Sanchez Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against US Help Union, LLC. The case is styled as Rachel Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. US Help Union, LLC doing business as InsureUS, Case No. 1:25-at-00926 (E.D. Cal., Oct. 9, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. US Help Union, LLC doing business as InsureUS -- https://www.insure-us.org/ -- is an insurance agency that offers home, auto, boat, renter, RV, flood, motorcycle, commercial, and home insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park E., Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com VENEZUELA: Fact Discovery in Zahn Due March 27, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SABINE ZAHN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA, Case No. 1:24-cv-09271-JPC-HJR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo entered a case management plan and scheduling order as follows: All fact discovery shall be completed by Mar. 27, 2026. All expert discovery, including reports, production of underlying documents, and depositions, shall be completed no later than May 16, 2026. The parties are directed to confer regarding the appropriate timing for the anticipated class certification motion and by Oct. 16, 2025 should submit a proposed briefing schedule on the docket. The parties shall submit a joint status letter by Dec. 1, 2025 no longer than single-spaced pages. The case is a proposed plaintiff class action for breach of contract arising from the Republic's failure to make contractually mandated payments of principal and interest on certain of its sovereign bonds. The Republic issued $1,000,000,000 principal amount of 9.375% bonds maturing on Jan. 13, 2034, under ISIN No. US922646BL74. The Republic issued another $500,000,000 principal amount of those bonds on Dec. 10, 2004. Those sovereign bonds (the "BL74 Bonds") were issued pursuant to a 1998 Fiscal Agency Agreement dated August 6, 1998. The original maturity date of the BL74 Bonds at the times of issuance was Jan. 13, 2034. The Plaintiff holds $10,000 principal amount of the BL74 Bonds. The Plaintiff will seek certification of a proposed "BL74 Class" defined to include all holders of BL74 Bonds on Dec. 5, 2024, who continue to hold thereafter. The Plaintiff filed the Complaint on December 5, 2024, and the First Amended Complaint on September 2, 2025. Venezuela is a country on the northern coast of South America with diverse natural attractions. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=noVcI9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Costantini, Esq. Stephanie Lamerce, Esq. Rudolph J. Di Massa, Esq. Arti Fotedar, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 22 Vanderbilt 335 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10017-4669 Telephone: (212) 692-1000 Facsimile: (212) 692-1020 E-mail: ajcostantini@duanemorris.com slamerce@duanemorris.com dimassa@duanemorris.com afotedar@duanemorris.com The Defendant is represented by: Marisa F. Antonelli, Esq. Camilo Cardozo, Esq. Dora Georgescu, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS LLP The Grace Building 1114 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 237-0000 E-mail: mantonelli@velaw.com ccardozo@velaw.com dgeorgescu@velaw.com VOODOO DOUGHNUT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Walker Says --------------------------------------------------------------- LEAH WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Voodoo Doughnut, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12285 (N.D. Ill., October 8, 2025) is a civil rights action against Voodoo Doughnut for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On March 18, 2025, the Plaintiff searched Google for online shops offering gourmet doughnuts and came across the Defendant's website. However, as she navigated the website and attempted to complete her order, she encountered accessibility barriers that prevented her from proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccessible drop-down menus, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Voodoo Doughnut's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Voodoo Doughnut, LLC operates the website that offers gourmet doughnuts (yeast-raised, cake-style, specialty flavors, vegan options), dozen assortments, beverages, and other merchandise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law ZIONS BANCORPORATION: 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 Zions Bancorporation, N.A. (NASDAQ: ZION, ZIONP) resulting from allegations that Zions Bancorporation, N.A. may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Zions Bancorporation, N.A. 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=46354 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 October 15, 2025, Zions Bancorporation, N.A. announced that it would be taking a $50 million charge-off for a loan underwritten by its wholly-owned subsidiary, California Bank & Trust, in light of "apparent misrepresentations and contractual defaults by the Borrowers and Obligors and other irregularities with respect to the Loans and collateral." Zions Bancorporation, N.A. further disclosed that it would be engaging counsel to coordinate an independent review of the matter. On this news, Zions Bancorporation, N.A. common stock fell 13.14% on October 16, 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] ********* 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 ***