251024.mbx

251024.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, October 24, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 213 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Newsom Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Njigha Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Robbins Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Waddell Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Williams Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina APPLE INC: Feeney Suit Removed to C.D. California BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Production of Medical Records from Plaintiff BLUE & CO: Guilfoile Sues Over Unprotected Private Information BORDER GENTLEMENS: Dowell Sues Over Exotic Dancers' Unpaid Wages BOYD GAMING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Gonzalez Alleges CANADA GOOSE: Installs Data Trackers Without Consent, Janiga Says CANTON-POTSDAM HOSPITAL: Naperkowski Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages CAPITAL ONE: Agrees to Settle Interest Rate Suit for $425MM CARDINAL SERVICES: Rangel Files Suit in D. Oregon CCI FINANCIAL: Jenkins Sues Over Data Security Failures CHEVRON USA: Faces Coffey Suit Over Refinery Massive Explosion CHIP'S LIQUOR: Cole Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind CIGNA HEALTH: Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal CLIFF VIESSMAN: Loyd Sues Over Inadequate Digital Security DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Must File Class Response in Noriega by Nov. 6 DANIEL BEERS: Bellis Seeks Leave to File Class Cert. Sureply DG'S A GENTLEMEN'S CLUB: Williams Sues Over Unpaid Wages DISNEY WORLDWIDE: Invades Children's Privacy, Popa Suit Says E.C.I. INC: Adkins Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ELEVANCE HEALTH: Newkirk Sues Over Alleged Violations of ERISA EXCHANGERIGHT NET: Malsack Sues Over Physical Barriers FAIRMONT FEDERAL: Butler and Knotts Sue Over Private Data Breach FIVERR INC: Amended Complaint Schedule Entered in Johnson Suit FORESIGHT ENERGY: Hewitt Sues Over Alleged Labor Law Breaches FRUITVALE OPERATING: Wilson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FUHRER LAND LLC: Mellenthin Sues Over Physical Barriers GAYLORD HOSPITAL: Fails to Protect Personal, Health Info, Lion Says GIOVANIS PIZZA & REST: Garcia Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensation GOODBABY INTERNATIONAL: Heath Sues Over Defective Baby Car Seats HOLIDAY DIVER: Espinoza Sues Over Discriminative Website HP INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Pattison Due by Jan. 21, 2026 INOGEN INC: Class Cert. Bid in Wilson Due June 1, 2026 JONATHAN FRANK: Class Cert Filing in Hill Extended JPMORGAN CHASE: Borrowers Sue Over Prime Rate-Fixing Conspiracy JSW STEEL: Dickson Seeks to Recover Production Employees' Unpaid OT JUST SALAD: Faces Martinez Suit Over Labor Law Violations KRISTI NOEM: Plaintiff Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Reply LC SPECIALIZED: Gardner Seeks Proper Overtime Wages for Caregivers LE GOURMET CENTRAL: Hampton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LITHIA MOTORS: Chun Seeks to Recover Sales Reps Unpaid Wages LJUBLJANA INTER: Klein Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Reply LOUD AUDIO: Class Certification Order Entered in Beven MARATHON PETROLEUM: Seeks to Continue Class Cert Filing to Oct. 29 MARYLAND: Seeks to Revise Class Cert Briefing Schedule MBV-CA LLC: White Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Proper Notice MCBS LLC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Neff Says MDL 3035: Alexander Files Bid For Class Certification MDL 3035: Alexander Wins Class Cert Bid MDL 3035: Carmichael Files Bid For Class Certification MDL 3035: Carmichael Wins Class Cert Bid MDL 3035: Ewins Wins Class Certification Bid MDL 3035: Jackson Files Bid For Class Certification MDL 3035: Plaintiffs Win Class Cert Bid in Retirement Fund Suit MDL 3035: Russ Files Bid For Class Certification MDL 3035: Russ Wins Bid for Class Certification MDL 3035: Wade Files Bid For Class Certification MDL 3035: Wade Wins Bid for Class Certification MERCER STREET: Fedak Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages MERRILL LYNCH: Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Sought in Valelly MICHELLE BAASS: Class Settlement in Hinkle Gets Final Nod MICROSOFT CORP: Bryant Sues Over Generative AI Market Monopoly MONSANTO COMPANY: Hatch Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Heims Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Liberatore Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Luna Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: McCaskill Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Mumma Suit Transferred to N.D. California MOR CONSTRUCTION: Horner Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages MPARTICLE INC: Hayward Privacy Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y. NATURAL CATCH: Fernandez Balks at Blind User-Inaccessible Website NESTLE HEALTH: Ford Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website NORDSTROM INC: Improperly Collects Sales & Use Tax, Rapps Alleges NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Bias Training NTT DATA: Underpays Employees, Robinson Suit Says O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Bid for Class Certification Due Nov. 27, 2026 PEARL RIVER, LA: Kuchler Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation PESCE MARBLE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Nichols Says PRETTY FARM: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Echols Says PROSPER FUNDING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Tammar Says PROVIDENT CARE INC: Grimson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RAISING CANE'S USA: Xatruch Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. REJUVALINE MEDSPA: Herrera Sues Over Disability Discrimination REST ASSURED ROOFING: Torres Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages RIDDLE'S GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Brolin Due August 6, 2026 ROBERT LESSER: Class Cert. Bid in Dumas Suit Dec. 1 ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE: Golant Sues Over Unfair Insurance Policies RXSIGHT INC: Gemesi Sues Over Securities Law Breaches SALLY BEAUTY: Beltran Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SHEPHERD'S DREAM: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Henry Says SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Bid for Leave to Restrict Reply Brief Granted SOUTHERN GRAPHICS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Rojowski Says SPIGEN INC: Faces Cole Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website STARK COUNTY, IL: Buckley Seeks Class Settlement Initial Approval STATION FILM INC: Yearwood Suit Removed to C.D. California SUPERIOR VISION: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ireland Says TITAN SECURITY: Anderson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation TNBN5 INC: Brooks Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages TOMMY BAHAMA GROUP: Haley Suit Removed to W.D. Washington TOP GUN CRE INC: Bellon Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California TOUCH THEM: Freeman Sues Over Illegal Background Screening Reports TRADITIONAL MEDICINALS: Desrys Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling TRANSUNION LLC: Faces Johnson Suit Over Private Data Breach TUFT & NEEDLE: Class Cert Hearing in Chebul Continued to Nov. 7 UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Plaintiffs Win Renewed Bid for Class Cert UNITED STATES: Hall Class Action Tossed w/o Prejudice UNITED STATES: Molina Seeks to Certify Warrantless Arrests Class UNITED STATES: Molina Suit Seeks to Certify Class UNITED STATES: Provisional Class Cert. Bid in Molina Due Oct. 29 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Faces Suit Over Privacy Law Violations UNIVERSITY OF OREGON: Seeks More Time to Complete Opposition VERADIGM INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cabonilas Says WEST SHORE HOME: Rhodes Sues Over Failure to Compensate Overtime WONWON GROUP: Parties Must Propose Amended Discovery Schedule WPP PLC: Faces Marty Class Suit Over Common Stock Price Drop Asbestos Litigation ********* 3M COMPANY: Newsom Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Stacy Robert Newsom, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01506 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-12910-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: Njigha Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Daniel Anthony Njigha, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01518 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-12909-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: Robbins Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Donna Robbins, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01474 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-12918-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: Waddell Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Janice Marie Waddell, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01487 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-12917-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: Williams Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Bernard Williams, et al, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01488 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-12916-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 APPLE INC: Feeney Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kimberly Feeney, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Does 110, Case No. 25STCV24599 was removed from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 10, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-09716 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Apple Inc. -- https://www.apple.com/ph/ -- is an American multinational technology company.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Graham Miller Stinnett, Esq. Kelly Gregg, Esq. Christopher Chorba, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN AND CRUTCHER 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 229-7079 Email: gstinnett@gibsondunn.com kgregg@gibsondunn.com cchorba@gibsondunn.com - and - Wesley Sze, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP 310 University Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: (650) 849-5347 Email: wsze@gibsondunn.com BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Production of Medical Records from Plaintiff ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kai Cao v. Bank of America, N.A. et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01195-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order compelling the Plaintiff to produce his relevant medical records, settlement agreement with Equifax Information Services, LLC, and to provide a computation of damages. Relevant excerpts of BANA's discovery requests and the Plaintiff's responses, respectively. BANA's written letter raising these issues with the Plaintiff's counsel and Plaintiff's counsel's response are attached hereto as Exhibit C and Exhibit D, respectively. Counsel certifies that the parties met and conferred in writing and telephonically in compliance with the Standing Order and Northern District Local Rules. On Jan. 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed his initial complaint against BANA. On May 3, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a separate lawsuit in this Court against Equifax Information Services, LLC, No. 4:24-cv-02666-HSG. The Equifax Lawsuit and this lawsuit involve the same plaintiff represented by the same counsel and include substantially similar factual allegations regarding how BANA and Equifax managed the reporting of Plaintiff's BANA credit card account. Plaintiff seeks the same relief in the Equifax Lawsuit that he seeks in this lawsuit. On August 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement in the Equifax Lawsuit. Bank of America is a national, full-service commercial and consumer bank. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gEpcFZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Elizabeth Z. Timmermans, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 501 Fayetteville Street, Suite 500 Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 755-6600 Facsimile: (919) 755-6699 E-mail: eztimmermans@mcguirewoods.com BLUE & CO: Guilfoile Sues Over Unprotected Private Information -------------------------------------------------------------- GLORIA GUILFOILE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE & CO., LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01855-JPH-MKK (S.D. Ind., September 16, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data about its current and former clients and their employees. On December 9, 2024, the Defendant learned of an unauthorized actor who claimed to have taken data from one server in its IT environment. The Defendant's investigation revealed that the data breach occurred on November 7, 2024. However, the Defendant waited until July 24, 2025--almost eight months after the data breach began--to begin notifying victims that their private information had been compromised and stolen during the data breach. Moreover, the Defendant's failure to promptly and properly notify Plaintiff and Class Members of the data breach exacerbated Plaintiff and Class Members' injury by depriving them of the earliest ability to take appropriate measures to protect their private information and take other necessary steps to mitigate the harm caused by the data breach, says the suit. Headquartered in Carmel, IN, Blue & Co., LLC is an accounting firm that provides services including auditing, business planning, financial controls, mergers and acquisitions, business valuation, employee benefits and litigation support. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com BORDER GENTLEMENS: Dowell Sues Over Exotic Dancers' Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- KAYLA DOWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BORDER GENTLEMENS CLUB, JOHN DOE (OWNER AKA TONY), and JANE DOE (MANAGER AKA MINDY), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-05728-KBH (E.D. Pa., October 3, 2025) arises from the Defendant's unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint alleges the Defendant's failure to pay wages and benefits; failure to pay minimum and overtime wages; intentional misclassification of employees; and illegal wage deductions. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an exotic dance performer from approximately August 9, 2024 to present. The Border Gentlemens Club is a strip/gentlemen's club in Morrisville, Pennsylvania.[BN] BOYD GAMING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Gonzalez Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- KARLA GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOYD GAMING CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01955 (D. Nev., Oct. 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifying information of its current and former customers and employees. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII against unauthorized access and disclosure. The Defendant breached that duty by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect Plaintiff's and Class members' PII from unauthorized access and disclosure. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate security and breach of its duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and Class members' PII was accessed and disclosed, says the suit. Boyd Gaming Corporation is a casino entertainment company. The Company owns and operates hotels, casino, and gaming properties. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. O'Mara, Esq. THE O'MARA LAW FIRM, P.C. 311 East Liberty St. Reno, Nevada 89501 Telephone: (775) 323-1321 Facsimile: (775) 323-4082 Email: david@omaralaw.net - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 205 West Randolph Street, Ste 1630 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 CANADA GOOSE: Installs Data Trackers Without Consent, Janiga Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN JANIGA, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. CANADA GOOSE US, INC., a Delaware corporation; CANADA GOOSE INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-02441 (C.D. Cal., September 16, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Allegedly, the Defendants installed and operated a tracking software on the website, www.canadagoose.com, without providing users with adequate notice or obtaining their informed consent. Moreover, the software is deployed to accomplish Defendant's commercial objectives, including identity resolution, targeted advertising, and the monetization of consumer data. Headquartered in Toronto, Ontario, Canada Goose operates as a luxury apparel company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC P.O. Box 1989 #305 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com CANTON-POTSDAM HOSPITAL: Naperkowski Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ MADISON NAPERKOWSKI, TEDDRA ROBERTS and BRANDY MARTIN, and individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CANTON-POTSDAM HOSPITAL, ROCHESTER REGIONAL HEALTH, AYA HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., and any related entities, Defendants, Case No. 6:25-cv-01375-AJB-TWD (N.D.N.Y., October 2, 2025) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation as well as related damages owed to the Named Plaintiffs and all similar situated persons. From at least October 2019 and continuing through the present, Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of depriving its employees of the applicable straight time wages and overtime wages for work they performed as mandated by federal and state law. The Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of having its employees regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing overtime compensation as required by the applicable federal and state laws. The Defendants also failed to provide appropriate wage notices and pay statements to Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated as required under NYLL, says the suit. Named Plaintiff Naperkowski was employed jointly by Defendants as an hourly paid Registered Nurse from March 2022 through January 2025. Canton-Potsdam Hospital is a domestic not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frank Gattuso, Esq. Ryan G. Files, Esq. GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC The White House 7030 E. Genesee Street Fayetteville, NY 13066 Telephone: (315) 314-8000 Facsimile: (315) 446-7521 E-mail: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com rfiles@gclawoffice.com CAPITAL ONE: Agrees to Settle Interest Rate Suit for $425MM ----------------------------------------------------------- Raquel R., writing for El Adelantado de Segovia, reports that Capital One Financial Corp., one of the largest banking conglomerates in the United States, has agreed to pay $425 million to its customers to settle a massive class action lawsuit. The scandalous part of this whole affair is that the bank punished its customers for their loyalty. Thousands of people with Capital One accounts were left with a miserable 0.3% interest rate on their savings, while Capital One offered up to 4.3% to new customers. Loyalty is dead, and companies like this are the ones that killed it. Capital One is one of the largest banking corporations in the country: it is known for its credit cards, savings accounts, and checking accounts under the 360 brand. They are one of the banks that place the most emphasis on digital banking. If you have had a Capital One bank account for many years, this scandal may affect you too. The Interest Rate Trap The whole problem stems from this digital bank's flagship product: the 360 savings account. For years, this bank offered it as a competitive "high-yield” product. However, all that changed in September 2019. That's when Capital Guan launched an almost identical product: the 360 Performance Savings Account. This savings account offers a much higher interest rate than the previous one. While the US Federal Reserve raised rates, the old account (360 Savings) remained frozen, paying a measly 0.3%. The new account, on the other hand, paid peaks of up to 4.3% at its highest point. The crux of the matter is that Capital One did not adequately notify its existing customers about the existence (or benefits) of the new product they were offering. Loyalty was not only not rewarded, but punished by inertia. Customers who stayed with the original account lost years of growth. It is estimated that those affected suffered this from September 18, 2019, to June 16, 2025. The interest losses for customers were collectively estimated at more than US$2 billion. Needless to say, the $425 million class action settlement is a bargain for Capital One compared to what it should have paid customers in the first place. Despite this, Capital One has acted wrongly, even though it is seeking to recover that debt from savers. The $425 million settlement Although the total amount is $425 million, it will be divided into two parts to provide full compensation. First, a fund of $300 million will be estimated to pay for lost interest. Potential beneficiaries include both current customers and those who closed their 360 savings account during the period covered by this lawsuit. The amount each person receives will be calculated later, taking into account how much money they had in the account and how long they kept this savings account open. The goal is to pay the difference between what they actually earned and what they would have earned if they had been offered the higher-yield account. An additional $125 million will be used for customers who still have the old savings account open. The bank has agreed to pay these accounts an interest rate that is at least double the FDIC national average for a period of time. In this way, it is trying to ensure that the remaining customers are not stuck with a low rate again. Who qualifies for the class action? As we have not stated, any person or entity that has had a 360 savings account from 2019 to 2025 may be part of the Class Action. Most members did not need to submit an active claim form, but rather Capital One automatically identified eligible customers through its records. If you did not take action, you are included in the settlement and will benefit. Your immediate step is to watch for official notification by email or physical mail from the Settlement Administrator. The legal process will close with final approval from a judge, scheduled for November 6, 2025. Payments will be distributed once the judge has given final approval and all appeals have been resolved. The money is expected to be distributed in late 2025 or early 2026. [GN] CARDINAL SERVICES: Rangel Files Suit in D. Oregon ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cardinal Services, Inc. The case is styled as Bobbi Rangel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cardinal Services, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-01858-MC (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 CCI FINANCIAL: Jenkins Sues Over Data Security Failures ------------------------------------------------------- JEREMY JENKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CCI FINANCIAL INC., d/b/a CheckCityCashing.com, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00815 (D. Utah, September 16, 2025) asserts claims arising from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members. On or about April 3, 2025, the Defendant observed a network disruption event as a result of unauthorized access to its IT Network. Defendant determined that some of its files may have been accessed and/or removed by the unauthorized individual(s) on or about March 21, 2025. However, the Defendant only issued a public disclosure about the data breach on September 12, 2025--more than five months after the data breach occurred. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. Headquartered in Provo, UT, CCI Financial Inc. operates as a financial services company that provides wealth management services, including financial planning and investment portfolio management. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason R. Hull, Esq. Anikka T. Hoidal, Esq. MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, PC Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 456-7655 E-mail: jhull@mohtrial.com ahoidal@mohtrial.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com CHEVRON USA: Faces Coffey Suit Over Refinery Massive Explosion -------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL COFFEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.; CHEVRON CORPORATION; and DOES 1–10, Case No. 2:25-cv-09699 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants arising from a preventable industrial catastrophe that caused extensive damage throughout Los Angeles County's South Bay. On the evening of Oct. 2, 2025, a massive explosion tore through the Chevron El Segundo Refinery, sending fireballs hundreds of feet into the air and blanketing nearby communities with toxic soot and chemical fallout. The blast was not a freak accident and was the foreseeable result of years of deferred maintenance, ignored warnings, and repeated safety violations at one of California's oldest and most heavily cited refineries, the suit contends. In pursuit of profit and production, Chevron chose to gamble with public safety -- and Los Angeles County residents like Plaintiff lost. The result was a community left coughing, cleaning, and fearing for its health and property, the suit adds. The Plaintiff brings this class action to hold Chevron accountable for operating a refinery that endangered thousands of Los Angeles County residents, contaminated homes and businesses, and violated the most basic duties owed to the public it surrounds. Mr. Coffey is an adult individual domiciled in Redondo Beach, California. After the Incident, he experienced respiratory symptoms (coughing, wheezing, chest tightness, headaches), sought or will seek medical care and relief, and incurred property damage to his car and boat from soot/ash/oily fallout. Chevron is a Pennsylvania corporation that owns and/or operates the Chevron Refinery in Los Angeles County, California. Chevron managed the processes and equipment implicated in the Incident and is responsible for releases and emissions therefrom.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony W. Trujillo, Esq. 6080 Center Drive No. 600 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 210-9302 Facsimile: (310) 921-5616 E-mail: at@tru-win.com CHIP'S LIQUOR: Cole Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ HARON COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Chip's Liquor, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12111 (N.D. Ill., October 3, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://chipsliquor.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On June 17, 2025, the Plaintiff began searching Google for an online store offering liquors and came across the Defendant's website. However, as he tried to navigate the website and complete his purchase, he encountered accessibility barriers that significantly hindered his ability to proceed. Specifically, an unannounced pop-up window appeared on the website, causing him to miss important information. Additionally, many interactive elements were not keyboard focusable, preventing him from accessing or interacting with key features on the website using only the keyboard, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Chip's Liquor'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. Chip's Liquor, LLC operates the website that offers a variety of liquors, tequila, gin, whiskey, mezcal, wine, beer, and rum.[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 CIGNA HEALTH: Seeks Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-00769-OAW (D. Conn.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file under seal portions of opposition to motion for class certification and exhibits. Cigna also moves the Court for leave to file under seal portions of the opposition that discuss these exhibits. Cigna offers health insurance plans. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=axOy05 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth K. Acee, Esq. BARCLAY DAMON LLP 545 Long Wharf Drive, Ninth Floor New Haven, CT 06511 Telephone: (203) 672-2659 Facsimile: (203) 654-3260 E-mail: eacee@barclaydamon.com - and - Andrew N. Goldfarb, Esq. R. Miles Clark, Esq. Alyssa Howard Card, Esq. Jason S. Cowart, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 2100 L Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 778-1800 Facsimile: (202) 822-8106 E-mail: agoldfarb@zuckerman.com mclark@zuckerman.com acard@zuckerman.com jcowart@zuckerman.com - and - Leslie Howard, Esq. COHEN HOWARD, LLP 331 Newman Springs Road Building 2, Suite 236 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (732) 747-5202 E-mail: lhoward@cohenhoward.com The Defendant is represented by: Joshua B. Simon, Esq. Warren Haskel, Esq. Richard W. Nicholson, Jr., Esq. Chelsea Cosillos, Esq. Cindy D. Ham, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & SCHULTE LLP One Vanderbilt Avenue New York, NY 10017-3852 Telephone: (212) 547-5400 Facsimile: (212) 547-5444 E-mail: jsimon@mwe.com whaskel@mwe.com rnicholson@mwe.com ccosillos@mwe.com cham@mwe.com - and - Theodore J. Tucci, Esq. Gregory J. Bennici, Esq. ROBINSON & COLE LLP One State Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8210 Facsimile: (860) 275-8299 E-mail: ttucci@rc.com gbennici@rc.com CLIFF VIESSMAN: Loyd Sues Over Inadequate Digital Security ---------------------------------------------------------- SHERRY LOYD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLIFF VIESSMAN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01013-KES (D.S.D., September 16, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the private information. According to the complaint, the Defendant learned that private information contained in its network was accessed by the unauthorized third-party on or around August 5, 2025. On September 10, 2025--one month after Defendant was made aware of the data breach--Defendant issued a public disclosure about the data breach and began sending notice letters to impacted individuals. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was exposed to criminals. Accordingly, 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. Headquartered in Gary, SD, Cliff Viessman, Inc. operates as a food hauler, which transports goods across the country. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan P. McCoy, Esq. COSTELLO, PORTER, HILL, HEISTERKAMP, BUSHNELL & CARPENTER, LLP PO Box 290 Rapid City, SD 57709 Telephone: (605) 343-2410 E-mail: jmccoy@costelloporter.com DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Must File Class Response in Noriega by Nov. 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Noriega, et al., v. Dallas County, Case No. 3:25-cv-01567 (N.D. Tex., Filed June 18, 2025), the Hon. Judge Jane J. Boyle entered an order granting Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to File Response to Motion to Certify Class. -- The Defendant must file its response by Nov. 6, 2025. The nature of suit states Civil Rights. Dallas, in north central Texas, is bordered by Kaufman and Rockwall counties to the east, Tarrant County to the west.[CC] DANIEL BEERS: Bellis Seeks Leave to File Class Cert. Sureply ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROCHELLE GLASGOW, et al., v. DANIEL J. BEERS, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-02001-DAR (N.D. Ohio), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting requests leave to file the Surreply. Pursuant to Section 14 of the Court's Case Management Order, Dale Bellis moves for leave to file a surreply in opposition to the motion for class certification. Bellis moves to file a surreply to respond to new arguments that the Glasgow plaintiffs raised in their reply brief. Bellis also seeks to file this surreply to clarify and respond to the Glasgow plaintiffs' erroneous constructions of case law and to otherwise clarify the record. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6O8fav at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr. David H. Thomas, Jr. Cary M. Snyder, Jr. TAFT STETTINIUS &HOLLISTER LLP 200 Public Square, Suite 3500 Cleveland, OH 44114-2302 Telephone: (216) 241-2838 Facsimile: (216) 241-3707 E-mail: mzbiegien@taftlaw.com dthomas@taftlaw.com csnyder@taftlaw.com DG'S A GENTLEMEN'S CLUB: Williams Sues Over Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Valencia Williams, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. DG'S A GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, Case No. 3:25-cv-02760-L (N.D. Tex., Oct. 10, 2025), is brought for unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff worked in the State of Texas without being paid at least the full minimum wage for all hours worked. The Defendant controlled and/or was responsible for the work of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff did a specific job, i.e., dance for and entertain guests, which was/is an integral part of the business of Defendant. As a result of these common policies, the Plaintiff is entitled to receive full minimum for each hour worked as repayment improperly unpaid/deducted from her wages. During her employment, the Plaintiff complained about the illegal practices above describing the Defendant's management, and the Defendant took no action to stop the illegal practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as an Entertainer for Defendant in Texas. DG'S A Gentlemen's Club, is a company located and doing business in Dallas, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. McCarley, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC 11300 North Central Expy. Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75243 Phone: 214-210-2100 Email: mccarley@foresterhaynie.com wage@foresterhaynie.com - and - Ryan J. Glover, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 813-7513 Email: rglover@theleachfirm.com cleach@theleachfirm.com DISNEY WORLDWIDE: Invades Children's Privacy, Popa Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ASHLEY POPA, on behalf of her minor children, J.D. and J.D., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DISNEY WORLDWIDE SERVICES, INC.; DISNEY ENTERTAINMENT OPERATIONS LLC; and THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-09390 (C.D. Cal., October 2, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the 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. 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. Minor Plaintiffs and their guardian, Ashley Popa, are American citizens and residents of Pennsylvania. 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 Plaintiffs are represented by: 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 E.C.I. INC: Adkins Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Adkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. E.C.I., INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-02179 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 10, 2025), is brought pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (the "FLSA") and the Ohio law as a result of the Defendant's pay all non-exempt employees at least one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours each workweek. The Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Collective and the State Law Class regularly worked more than 40 hours in a single workweek. Although Defendant suffered and permitted Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Collective and the State Law Class to work more than 40 hours per workweek, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and members of the FLSA Collective and the State Law Class overtime at a rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. As a result, Plaintiff and the members of the FLSA Collective and the State Law Class were willfully not properly paid overtime compensation for their overtime hours worked as required by the FLSA and Ohio law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from September 2022 to May 2024 as a non-exempt employee. The Defendant describes itself as a provider of homemaker care, adult day services, intermediate care, and other services to people with differing abilities in Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 4400 N. High St., Suite 310 Columbus, Ohio 43214 Phone: (614) 704-0546 Facsimile: (614) 573-9826 Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Esther E. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 3450 W Central Ave., Suite 370 Toledo, Ohio 43606 Phone: (419) 824-4439 Facsimile: (419) 932-6719 Email: Ebryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II (0090455) SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 308 Strongsville, Ohio 44136 Phone: (216) 912-2221 Fax: (440) 846-1625 Email: scott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com ELEVANCE HEALTH: Newkirk Sues Over Alleged Violations of ERISA -------------------------------------------------------------- AMY NEWKIRK, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. ELEVANCE HEALTH, INC., f/k/a ANTHEM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01850-MPB-MKK (S.D. Ind., September 16, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the plain terms of the Anthem insured health plans. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and similarly situated enrollees in health plans insured by Defendant Anthem that categorically exclude all coverage for Zepbound to treat obstructive sleep apnea. Moreover, the Plaintiff additionally challenges Defendant's failure to consider her request for an Exception to the Anthem Formulary and to timely and fully provide all of the documents requested, pre-litigation. Elevance Health, Inc. is a health insurance and coverage company headquartered in Marion County, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Little, Esq. SAEED & LITTLE LLP 133 West Market Street, #189 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (812) 320-3367 E-mail: jon@sllawfirm.com - and - Eleanor Hamburger, Esq. Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq. SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC 3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (206) 223-0303 E-mail: ehamburger@sylaw.com rspoonemore@sylaw.com - and - Brock J. Specht, Esq. Anna Prakash, Esq. Patricia C. Dana, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 80 S. Eighth Street, Suite 4700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: bspecht@nka.com aprakash@nka.com pdana@nka.com EXCHANGERIGHT NET: Malsack Sues Over Physical Barriers ------------------------------------------------------ Darrin Malsack, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. EXCHANGERIGHT NET LEASED PORTFOLIO 13 DST, Case No. 2:25-cv-01559 (E.D. Wis., Oct. 12, 2025), is brought based upon Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access the property and violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"). The Plaintiff has visited the Property at least five times before as a customer and advocate for the disabled. The Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of the revisit is to be a return customer of Hobby Lobby, to determine if and when the Property is made accessible and to substantiate already existing standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes. The Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Property to purchase food and/or services as a return customer as well as for Advocacy Purposes but does not intend to re-expose himself to the ongoing barriers to access and engage in a futile gesture of visiting the public accommodation known to Plaintiff to have numerous and continuing barriers to access, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. EXCHANGERIGHT NET LEASED PORTFOLIO 13 DST, is the owner or co-owner of the real property and improvements that Hobby Lobby is situated upon and that is the subject of this action.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Phone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com FAIRMONT FEDERAL: Butler and Knotts Sue Over Private Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD BUTLER, TIMOTHY KNOTTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FAIRMONT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00094-TSK (N.D. Va., September 16, 2025) arises from Defendant's its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated current and former customers' sensitive information and protected health information. Despite learning about the breach on January 23, 2024, the Defendant incredibly waited over a year and a half until September 11, 2025 to begin notifying impacted individuals of the unauthorized access that occurred between September 30, 2023 and October 18, 2023. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and assert claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and for declaratory judgment. Headquartered in Fairmont, WV, Fairmont Federal Credit Union is a federally chartered financial institution providing banking services to individuals and businesses. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher D. Pence, Esq. Michael W. Taylor, Esq. PENCE LAW FIRM PLLC 10 Hale Street, 4th Floor Charleston, WV 25329 Telephone: (304) 345-7250 E-mail: cpence@pencefirm.com mtaylor@pencefirm.com and Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com rob@lcllp.com FIVERR INC: Amended Complaint Schedule Entered in Johnson Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johnson v. Fiverr Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-05079-NRB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered an order amending Complaint and Stipulation on Motion to Dismiss Briefing Schedule: Nov. 18, 2025: The Defendant files motion to dismiss (memoranda of law/brief of 10,000 or fewer words); Jan. 9, 2026: The Plaintiffs file opposition to motion to dismiss (memoranda of law/brief of 10,000 or fewer words); and Jan. 30, 2026: The Defendant files reply in support of motion to dismiss (memoranda of law/brief of 4,500 or fewer words Fiverr is a multinational online marketplace for freelance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HEeFZA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com The Defendant is represented by: David G. Hille, Esq. Julian A. Lamm, Esq. Russell J. Gould, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020-1095 Telephone: (212) 819-8200 FORESIGHT ENERGY: Hewitt Sues Over Alleged Labor Law Breaches ------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Hewitt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Foresight Energy LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-03273-CRL-DJQ (C.D. Ill., September 16, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a mine inspector from January 12, 2025 to June 22, 2025. Plaintiff routinely worked over 40 hours per workweek for Defendant. However, the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were not paid time and one-half their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in each and every workweek. Moreover, the Defendant's policy and/or practice does not permit Plaintiff and similarly situated workers to record the time spent completing compensable tasks that include donning, doffing, traveling, obtaining tools, and storing protective clothing and PPE. Headquartered in St. Louis, MO, Foresight Energy LLC produces and mines thermal coal. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Telephone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 E-mail: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com FRUITVALE OPERATING: Wilson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fruitvale Operating Company. The case is styled as Consuela Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fruitvale Operating Company, Case No. 25CV148226 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Oct. 10, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Fruitvale Operating Company, LP. doing business as Fruitvale Healthcare Center -- https://fruitvalehealthcarecenter.com/ -- offer comprehensive skilled nursing care with a focus on quality of life 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM 9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: 949-379-6250 Fax: (949) 379-6251 Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com FUHRER LAND LLC: Mellenthin Sues Over Physical Barriers ------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Mellenthin, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. FUHRER LAND, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-01521 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 12, 2025), is brought based upon Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access and violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"). The Plaintiff has visited the Property twice before as a customer and advocate for the disabled. The Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property within six months after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of the revisit is to be a return customer to Lesters, to determine if and when the Property is made accessible and to substantiate already existing standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes. The Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Property to purchase goods and/or services as a return customer as well as for Advocacy Purposes but does not intend to re-expose himself to the ongoing barriers to access and engage in a futile gesture of visiting the public accommodation known to Plaintiff to have numerous and continuing barriers to access. As such, Plaintiff is deterred from returning as a customer until the barriers to access identified in this Complaint are removed, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. FUHRER LAND, LLC, is the owner or co-owner of the real property and improvements that Lester's is situated upon and that is the subject of this action.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Phone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com GAYLORD HOSPITAL: Fails to Protect Personal, Health Info, Lion Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARY ANN LION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GAYLORD HOSPITAL, INC. d/b/a GAYLORD SPECIALTY HEALTHCARE, Defendant, Case No. _________ (Conn. Super., New Haven Cty., October 2, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed in September 2025. 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. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was exposed to criminals, 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, breach of implied contract, and breach of confidence. Gaylord Hospital, Inc. is a nonprofit medical rehabilitation center located in Wallingford, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Barile III, Esq. Christian Levis, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 E-mail: pbarile@lowey.com clevis@lowey.com - and - Anthony M. Christina, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. One Tower Bridge 100 Front Street, Suite 520 West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (215) 399-4770 E-mail: achristina@lowey.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW Suite 440 Washington, D.C. 20015 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com GIOVANIS PIZZA & REST: Garcia Sues to Recover Unpaid Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Edmundo Garcia, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GIOVANIS PIZZA & REST, INC, CALOGERO DIMAGGIO and DOSTANA KEYANOVIC, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-08401 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") as recently amended by the Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"), to recover, inter alia, unpaid minimum wage compensation, unpaid overtime wage compensation, spread-of-hours pay, statutory damages, and liquidated damages for Plaintiff. Despite consistently working approximately 75 hours per week, the Plaintiff was not paid either the required minimum wage or overtime compensation at one and one-half times the regular rate for hours worked over 40 per week, resulting in substantial unpaid wages. The Defendants willfully and intentionally maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and the FLSA collective employees to work more than 40 hours per week without providing them with any additional compensation. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NJWHL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired primarily as a cook. The Defendants owned and operated GIOVANIS PIZZA & REST, INC, a corporate entity principally engaged in Bronx, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 203-2417 Email: info@StillmanLegalPC.com GOODBABY INTERNATIONAL: Heath Sues Over Defective Baby Car Seats ---------------------------------------------------------------- KATHLEEN HEATH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOODBABY INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED d/b/a EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12993 (D. Mass., Oct. 13, 2025) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant regarding the manufacture, distribution, and sale of its Revolve360 Gold and Revolve360 Slim child seats manufactured between December 1, 2022, and December 8, 2024 (the "Affected Products"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Affected Products pose a choking hazard because the headrest foam is not adequately secured away from the child, which can allow the child to pick off pieces of foam, which poses a choking hazard if placed in the child's mouth. This is a design defect, which the Defendant has acknowledged through a product recall, posing a choking hazard to children using the seat as intended. Consumers, including the Plaintiff, would not have purchased the Affected Products, or at the very least paid less for the Affected Products, if she knew about the defect, says the suit. Goodbaby International Holdings Ltd. is an international durable juvenile products company. The Company designs, researches and develops, manufactures, markets and sells strollers, children's car safety seats, cribs, bicycles and tricycles, and other durable juvenile products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary Ishimoto, Esq. Mark S. Reich, Esq. Michael N. Pollack, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: gishimoto@zlk.com mreich@zlk.com mpollack@zlk.com HOLIDAY DIVER: Espinoza Sues Over Discriminative Website -------------------------------------------------------- Alejandro Espinoza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOLIDAY DIVER, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation D/B/A DIVERS DIRECT, Case No. 1:25-cv-24675-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 10, 2025), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), as a result of the Defendant's discriminative website. The Defendant was and still is an organization owning and operating the website located at https://www.diversdirect.com. Since the website is open through the internet to the public as an extension of the retail stores, by this nexus the website is an intangible service, privilege and advantage of Defendant's brick and mortar locations, the Defendant has subjected itself and the associated website it created and maintains to the requirements of the ADA. The website also services Defendant's physical stores by providing information on its brand and other information that Defendant is interested in communicating to its customers about its physical locations. Although the Website appeared to have an "accessibility" statement displayed and an "accessibility" widget/plugin added, the "accessibility" statement and widget/plugin, when tested, still could not be effectively accessed by, and continued to be a barrier to, blind and visually disabled persons, including Plaintiff as a completely blind person. Plaintiff, although she attempted to access the statement, thus, was unable to receive any meaningful or prompt assistance through the "accessibility" statement and the widget/plugin to enable her to quickly, fully, and effectively navigate the Website, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses the computer regularly, but due to his visual disability, Plaintiff cannot use his computer without the assistance of appropriate and available auxiliary aids, screen reader software, and other technology and assistance. DIVERS DIRECT, is a company that sells scuba gear, snorkel gear, freedive and spearfish supplies, wetsuits, rash guards, apparel, footwear, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diego German Mendez, Esq. MENDEZ LAW OFFICES, PLLC P.O. BOX 228630 Miami, FL 33172 Phone: 305.264.9090 Facsimile: 1-305.809.8474 Email: info@mendezlawoffices.com - and - Richard J. Adams, Esq. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 6500 Cowpen Road, Suite 101 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Phone: 786-290-1963 Facsimile: 305-824-3868 Email: radamslaw7@gmail.com HP INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Pattison Due by 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 Hon. Judge Chesney entered an order granting joint stipulation to extend deadlines in connection with class certification: 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 re class certification and opposition to Daubert by May 1, 2026. 6. The Defendant to file reply re 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. HP is an American multinational information technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1tOzeL at no extra charge.[CC] INOGEN INC: Class Cert. Bid in Wilson Due June 1, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILSON v. INOGEN, INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-01168 (D. Or., Filed July 06, 2025), the Hon. Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai entered an order adopting the parties' Joint Discovery Plan and Case Management Schedule as follows: -- Amended Pleadings are due by Dec. 1, 2025. -- Exchange of Expert Witness Disclosures must be completed by Feb. 28, 2026. -- Exchange of Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosures must be completed by March 30, 2026. -- Discovery is to be completed by May 1, 2026. -- Dispositive Motions are due by June 1, 2026. -- Class Certification Motion to be filed by June 1, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Inogen is a medical technology company.[CC] JONATHAN FRANK: Class Cert Filing in Hill Extended -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Adean Hill, Jr., v. Law Office of Jonathan C. Frank & Associates, PLLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00939-JCB (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Barker entered an order granting the plaintiff's motion to extend the deadline to file for default judgment and class certification. However, the court defers ruling on the plaintiff's request to seek early discovery until plaintiff submits a motion detailing the specific discovery requested. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, parties may not seek discovery until they have conferred as required by Rule 26(f) unless discovery is otherwise authorized by the Rules or by court order. The Plaintiff brought this action under 47 U.S.C. section 227, complaining that the defendant unlawfully solicited residential telephone numbers on the federal government's do-not-call registry. The Defendant did not respond to the complaint, so the clerk entered default. The Plaintiff now seeks leave to conduct early discovery to determine the propriety of class certification and to calculate damages. The Plaintiff also seeks to extend the deadline to file for default judgment and class certification by 6 months. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xfRIbm at no extra charge.[CC] JPMORGAN CHASE: Borrowers Sue Over Prime Rate-Fixing Conspiracy --------------------------------------------------------------- Fatima E, writing for JDJournal reports that in a sweeping new class-action lawsuit, a group of borrowers has accused some of the largest U.S. financial institutions of colluding to artificially set the nation's benchmark lending rate -- the prime rate -- over a span of decades. The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, targets eight of the country's leading banks and claims they have engaged in a coordinated scheme to fix interest rates, inflating costs for millions of American consumers and small businesses. Accusations of a Longstanding Conspiracy According to the plaintiffs, the defendants engaged in an illegal agreement to synchronize their prime rates, thereby eliminating competition and ensuring borrowers paid higher interest across the board. The lawsuit claims that this practice has cost consumers and small businesses billions of dollars in excess interest payments over more than 30 years. The prime rate is one of the most influential benchmarks in the U.S. financial system. It typically tracks three percentage points above the Federal Reserve's federal funds rate and is used as the reference rate for a wide variety of lending products. The plaintiffs allege that roughly 70% of all U.S. consumer loans under $1 million are tied directly to this benchmark -- meaning any manipulation has widespread financial repercussions. Attorneys representing the plaintiffs argue that the uniformity of the prime rate among the nation's largest banks cannot be explained by market forces alone. Instead, they claim the banks maintained their prime rates in "lockstep," adjusting them simultaneously and identically for decades, without any independent competitive pricing. Historical Shift in Prime Rate Publication The complaint points to a significant change in how the Wall Street Journal publishes the prime rate as a key factor that enabled the alleged collusion. Before 1992, the WSJ listed a range of prime rates -- showing the highest and lowest rates offered by major banks. This transparency revealed slight variations between institutions, reflecting genuine market competition. However, beginning in 1992, the WSJ switched to publishing a single, unified figure -- the so-called "WSJ Prime Rate" -- calculated based on the rates charged by a panel of the nation's largest banks. Plaintiffs contend that since then, those banks have almost uniformly quoted the exact same prime rate, suggesting they effectively agreed to standardize the figure rather than independently determine it. The lawsuit asserts that this decades-long uniformity among competitors violates federal antitrust laws by restricting market competition and fixing prices in one of the most critical financial metrics affecting everyday borrowers. Plaintiffs' Representation and Legal Arguments The borrowers are represented by the law firm Scott + Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, a firm with a history of handling high-profile antitrust and financial litigation. The legal team includes attorneys Patrick McGahan, Carmen Medici, and Karin Garvey, who allege that the banks' coordinated behavior amounts to a "horizontal conspiracy" prohibited under the Sherman Antitrust Act. According to the complaint, the banks' actions "cannot be explained by independent market behavior," as true competition would have produced variation in the prime rates over time. Instead, the lawsuit claims the banks intentionally maintained identical rates, knowing that small differences in pricing could have led to competitive advantages or losses. The plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a nationwide class of borrowers, which could include hundreds of thousands of individuals and small business owners who took out loans pegged to the prime rate. The total potential financial impact could reach into the billions, depending on how the court defines the class and measures damages. Defendants and Industry Reaction As of now, the defendant banks -- JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and others -- have either declined to comment or have not yet issued formal statements regarding the allegations. The Wall Street Journal and its publisher, Dow Jones & Company, which reports the prime rate but is not named as a defendant, also have not commented on the litigation. Historically, banks have argued that their prime rates are determined independently based on internal considerations such as funding costs, credit risk, and overall market conditions. The plaintiffs' attorneys, however, claim that decades of identical rate movements prove the opposite -- that the institutions were acting in concert to maintain control over the lending benchmark. Potential Implications for the Financial Industry If proven, the allegations could have sweeping consequences for the financial sector and for borrowers across the country. The prime rate serves as a foundation for determining variable interest rates on loans and credit cards, meaning any coordinated manipulation could have inflated costs for millions of Americans for years. Legal analysts say this case echoes other major financial manipulation scandals, such as the LIBOR rate-fixing controversy that led to billions in fines and reforms in global banking practices. The outcome of this lawsuit could spur regulatory scrutiny into how benchmark rates are established and reported -- and may ultimately reshape the transparency requirements for financial institutions. What Comes Next The case is still in its early stages, and the plaintiffs face the complex challenge of proving collusion among powerful banking institutions. The discovery process could take months or even years, as attorneys seek internal communications, meeting records, and rate-setting data from the banks involved. Regardless of the outcome, the lawsuit highlights ongoing concerns about transparency and fairness in the U.S. lending system. For borrowers and business owners whose loans are tied to the WSJ Prime Rate, the case could finally bring long-overdue clarity -- and possibly restitution -- if the allegations are upheld. [GN] JSW STEEL: Dickson Seeks to Recover Production Employees' Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM DICKSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JSW STEEL USA OHIO, INC. d.b.a JSW USA, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01144-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio, October 3, 2025) challenges certain policies and practices of Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio's Prompt Pay Act for failure to pay employees for all compensable time, resulting in unpaid overtime and untimely wages. During Plaintiff's employment, Named Plaintiff worked 40 or more hours in one or more workweeks. During his employment, the Defendant did not compensate Named Plaintiff for integral and indispensable work. As a result, Named Plaintiff was not fully and properly paid for all hours worked, including overtime wages, in violation of the FLSA and/or OMFWSA. Plaintiff Dickson was employed by Defendant from approximately May 8, 2023 until May 7, 2025, as an hourly, non-exempt production employee. Specifically, Named Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Ladle Controller at Defendant's facility located in Mingo Junction, Jefferson County, Ohio. JSW Steel USA Ohio, Inc. manufactures steel plate and pipe for energy and petrochemical industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 East 9th Street, Ste. 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 230-2944 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com JUST SALAD: Faces Martinez Suit Over Labor Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------- JHON MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUST SALAD LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12601-FDS (D. Mass., September 16, 2025) seeks to recover regular and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Portal-to-Portal Act, and the Massachusetts Wage Act. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an assistant manager beginning on or about March 18, 2024, through on or about May 16, 2025. Allegedly, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and putative Collective Action Members one and one-half times their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in each and every seven-day workweek in violation of the federal and state labor laws. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks to recover all damages available for Defendant's failure to timely pay all overtime wages owed, including back wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and post-judgment interest. Just Salad LLC owns and operates fast casual restaurants in Burlington, MA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Gordon, Esq. Kristen M. Hurley, Esq. GORDON LAW GROUP, LLP 585 Boylston St. Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 536-1800 Facsimile: (617) 536-1802 E-mail: pgordon@gordonllp.com khurley@gordonllp.com - and - Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Telephone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 E-mail: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com KRISTI NOEM: Plaintiff Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Reply ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as H.C.R., et al., v. KRISTI NOEM, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00747-SPC-DNF (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting then leave to file a reply to the Federal Defendants' response in accordance with this motion no later than Oct. 9, 2025. Pursuant to Local Rules 3.01(d), the Plaintiffs move the Court for leave to file a reply in support of their Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 114), of no more than twelve (12) pages in length, no later than October 9, 2025. Defendants do not oppose this motion to file a reply. On Sept. 11, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed suit against the Defendants as new parties in the First Amended Complaint in this case. On the same date, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs seek an opportunity to address the Federal Defendants’ legal arguments regarding class certification, including arguments over the scope of the court's jurisdiction to provide relief to members of the proposed class, and whether Plaintiffs and the proposed class meet the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b). The Plaintiff's proposed reply brief will be twelve (12) or fewer pages. Kristi Noem is an American politician. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kTGIAc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul R. Chavez, Esq. Christina LaRocca, Esq. AMERICANS FOR IMMIGRANT JUSTICE 2200 NW 72nd Ave Miami, FL 33152 Telephone: (786) 218-3381 E-mail: pchavez@aijustice.org clarocca@aijustice.org - and - Amy Godshall, Esq. Daniel Tilley, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA 4343 West Flagler Street, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 363-2714 E-mail: agodshall@aclufl.org dtilley@aclufl.org - and - Eunice H. Cho, Esq. Corene Kendrick, Esq. Kyle Virgien, Esq. Marisol Dominguez-Ruiz, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 915 15th St. N.W., 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 548-6616 E-mail: echo@aclu.org ckendrick@aclu.org kvirgien@aclu.org mdominguez-ruiz@aclu.org LC SPECIALIZED: Gardner Seeks Proper Overtime Wages for Caregivers ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHERRY A. GARDNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), Plaintiff v. LC. SPECIALIZED HOMECARE LLC; and LEONARDA RICHARDSON, individually, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-01010-P (N.D. Tex., September 16, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked full time as caregivers for Defendants, and regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. However, she was paid only her straight time rate for such overtime hours, not time and a half. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action to recover compensation for the hours she worked for which she was not paid overtime. LC Specialized Homecare LLC provides home care services in Forth Worth, TX. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jerry Murad, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JERRY MURAD P.O. Box 470067 Fort Worth, TX 76147 Telephone: (817) 335-5691 Facsimile: (817) 870-1162 E-mail: jerrymurad@mac.com - and - Brian T. Farrington, Esq. COWLES & THOMPSON, P.C. 901 Main Street, Suite 3900 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 672-2117 Facsimile: (214) 672-2317 E-mail: bfarrington@cowlesthompson.com LE GOURMET CENTRAL: Hampton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Le Gourmet Central, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12071 (N.D. Ill., October 2, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, legourmetcentral.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On June 10, 2025, the Plaintiff decided to browse Legourmetcentral.com with the intention of purchasing a gift box. While navigating the website, she encountered accessibility issues. Links were not properly labeled, making it difficult to understand their purpose and increasing the risk of selecting incorrect options. When she added a gift box to her cart, her screen reader did not announce that the item had been successfully added. These access barriers have caused Legourmetcentral.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired persons, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Le Gourmet Central'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. Le Gourmet Central, LLC operates the website that offers extra virgin olive oils, truffle products, charcuterie, caviar, specialty spreads and curated gift boxes.[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 LITHIA MOTORS: Chun Seeks to Recover Sales Reps Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ KYOUNG JIN CHUN, individually, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LITHIA MOTORS, INC., an Oregon Corporation; DOWNTOWN LA TOYOTA, entity unknown; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV27164 (Cal. Super., September 16, 2025) seeks to recover civil penalties and address Defendants’ violations of the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission's Wage Orders. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in an hourly, non-exempt position from 2018 through 2024, as an hourly, non-exempt internet sales representative/salesperson. The Plaintiff typically worked nine to ten hours per day and was scheduled five days per week. However, the Plaintiff and other the aggrieved employees have not been paid for all hours worked because they were often required to work off the clock. In addition, they were not provided with valid lawful on-duty meal periods, says the suit. Lithia Motors operates a number of retail automotive dealerships throughout the nation, including in California. The company is engaged in the business of selling new and used Toyota vehicles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina M. Lucio, Esq. Mitchell J. Murray, Esq. Nicholas W. Schieffelin, Esq. EMPLAW, LLP 2235 Encinitas Boulevard, Suite 210 Encinitas, CA 92024 Telephone: (760) 942-9433 E-mail: christina@emplawllp.com mitchell@emplawllp.com nick@emplawllp.com LJUBLJANA INTER: Klein Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Reply ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLISON KLEIN, an Individual, ISAAC LEE, an Individual and JOHNSON WU, an Individual, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. LJUBLJANA INTER AUTO D.O.O., a Slovenian Corporation, Dr. Ing. h.c.F. PORSCHE AG, a German corporation, and PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-10079-MWC-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order The Plaintiffs Allison Klein, Isaac Lee, Johnson Wu apply to file under seal the following documents: a. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of renewed motion for class certification; b. Declaration of Filippo Marchino in Support of the Plaintiffs' reply in renewed class certification motion; and c. Exhibits 1, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, and 4 of Marchino Declaration. This application is made pursuant to Local Rule 79-5.2.2(b) The specific basis for Plaintiffs’ request to seal is set forth in the accompanying Declaration of Filippo Marchino in Support of Application For Leave To File Under Seal. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EvSaDR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Filippo Marchino, Esq. Richard W. Davis, Esq. Thomas E. Gray, Esq. Carlos X. Colorado, Esq. THE X-LAW GROUP, P.C. 625 Fair Oaks Ave, Suite 390 South Pasadena, CA 91030 Telephone: (213) 599-3380 Facsimile: (213) 599-3370 E-mail: FM@XLAWX.com RD@XLAWX.com TG@XLAWX.com CC@XLAWX.com LOUD AUDIO: Class Certification Order Entered in Beven ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW BEVEN, v. LOUD AUDIO, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-04352-FMO-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order Re: motions for class certification: The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully integrated joint brief covering each party’s position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately followed by the opposing party's/parties' response. All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be directly to the exhibit and page number(s) of the evidentiary appendix, or page and line number(s) of a deposition. In order for a motion for class certification to be filed in a timely manner, the meet and confer must take place no later than 35 days before the deadline for class certification motions set forth in the Court's Case Management and Scheduling Order. LOUD provides audio and music products. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q62vfS at no extra charge.[CC] MARATHON PETROLEUM: Seeks to Continue Class Cert Filing to Oct. 29 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STELLA JOHNSON, EDWENNIA PETTIGREW and SHAWN R. MOTON, v. MARATHON PETROLEUM CORPORATION, ET AL., Case No. 2:23-cv-04573-DJP-JVM (E.D. La.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order continuing the submission date of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, currently submitted for Oct. 15, 2025, to a submission date of Oct. 29, 2025. Marathon is an American petroleum refining, marketing, and transportation company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7x5YtK at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Tim Gray, Esq. Mccanne Lefeve, Esq. Margaretw Mclaughlin, Esq. Michael A. Morton, Esq. FORMAN WATKINS & KRUTZ LLP 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 2100 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 799-4383 Facsimile: (504) 799-4384 MARYLAND: Seeks to Revise Class Cert Briefing Schedule ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as T.G., by his next friend, BEVERLY SCHULTERBRANDT, et al., v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-01433-MJM (D. Md.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting consent motion to revise the Parties' proposed briefing schedule for class certification: The Defendants, by and through their undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1), and with the consent of Plaintiffs, move this Court to approve the parties’ revised proposed briefing schedule for class certification. After various email exchanges about a more feasible class certification briefing schedule, the Defendants obtained the Plaintiffs' consent to the following revised schedule: a. The Plaintiffs' expert(s) to provide their report to the Defendants by Dec. 11, 2025. b. The Plaintiffs to file their renewed motion for class certification by Jan. 12, 2026. c. The Defendants' expert(s) to provide their report to the Plaintiffs by March 11, 2026. d. the Defendants to file their opposition to class certification by April 10, 2026. e. The Plaintiffs to file their Reply to the Defendants' opposition by May 1, 2026. The Defendants have shared this Motion with Plaintiffs, and they have indicated that they consent to it; therefore, it satisfies Local Rule 105.9. On Aug. 29, 2024, the Court issued an order (ECF 75) allowing for a period of class discovery, after which Plaintiffs could renew their class certification motion and Defendants could respond to it. Department of Human Services is Maryland's primary social services provider. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EPfGSV at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Barry Dalin, Esq. Ann M. Sheridan, Esq. Elise Song Kurlander, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 25 S. Charles Street, 10th Floor Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 767-7807 Facsimile: 410-333-0026 E-mail: barry.dalin@maryland.gov ann.sheridan1@maryland.gov elise.song@maryland.gov - and - Nicole Lugo Clark, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 300 W. Preston St., Suite 302 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 767-1867 Facsimile: 410-333-7894 E-mail: nicole.lugoclark@maryland.gov MBV-CA LLC: White Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Proper Notice ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHNY WHITE, SAMUEL JONES, and YUSAVE VANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MBV-CA, LLC, Case No. 2:25-at-01366 (E.D. Cal., Oct. 9, 2025) is a Class Action Complaint brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the "WARN Act"), by the Plaintiffs on their own behalf and on behalf of the other similarly situated persons against Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant abruptly terminated at least 400 employees in California, including the Plaintiffs, unilaterally and without proper notice to employees or staff. The Plaintiffs were terminated on or around Oct. 3, 2025, as part of a mass layoff or plant closing without proper notice. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated former employees who worked for Defendant and were terminated as part of the foreseeable mass layoff or plant closing ordered by the Defendant on or around Oct. 3, 2025, and within 90 days of that date and who were not provided 60 days' advance written notice of their terminations by the Defendant, as required by the WARN Act. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees should have received the full protection afforded by the WARN Act, the suit contends. The Defendant manufactures tobacco products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew G. Gunem, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: agunem@straussborrelli.com agunem@straussborrelli.com sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Samuel Gladney, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC 701 Market Street, Suite 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 E-mail: sgladney@stranchlaw.com Telephone: (314) 390-6750 - 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 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com MCBS LLC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Neff Says ---------------------------------------------------------- SHERRY NEFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.  MCBS, LLC,  Case No. 1:25-cv-00235-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga., Oct. 9, 2025) arises out of MCBS's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. The failure to secure and monitor its network resulted in a September 2025 data breach of highly sensitive documents and information stored on the computer network of MCBS, an organization that provides medical billing and/or employment to individuals, including Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack in or about September 2025 to compromise the Defendant's network that contained personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other individuals. On Sept. 25, 2025, the threat actor "PEAR" successfully breached MCBS's inadequately protected computer systems and accessed and exfiltrated an unknown quantity of highly sensitive patient data. The incident was publicly reported on BreachSense. As of the filing of this Complaint, the Defendant has not provided any kind of notice to affected individuals. PEAR ransomware is one of the most active ransomware groups targeting US entities in 2025 and is known for its rapid, professional attacks against healthcare and other American organizations. The group gains access mainly by using stolen or purchased VPN or RDP credentials, or by exploiting vulnerabilities through weak company data protection policies, and quickly exfiltrates data before deploying file-encrypting malware, the suit says. The types of information that PEAR has routinely exfiltrated in their ransomware attacks include, but are not limited to: names, birthdates, addresses, Social Security numbers, health insurance details, medical treatment data, financial records, intellectual property, accounting documents, legal files, personnel and customer information, and banking details. MCBS is a medical billing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua G. Schiffer, Esq. JD LAW GROUP, LLC 912 Holcomb Bridge Road, Ste. 203 Atlanta, GA 30076 Telephone: (404) 842-0909 E-mail: josh@jdlawgroup.com MDL 3035: Alexander Files 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.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to enter an order certifying the following Class: "All persons who were participants, or were those Participants' respective beneficiaries entitled to benefits, in the African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial Retirement Annuity Plan on June 30, 2021." All current and past Defendants are excluded from the Class. The Plaintiffs request that the Court grant their motion and enter an order granting certification of the Class, appointing undersigned counsel as Class Counsel, and appointing the named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives. 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 Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ayiD1A at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew E. Lee, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 421-7764 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, TN 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 Raleigh, NC 27602 Telephone: (919)833-1931 Facsimile: (919) 833-8009 E-mail: dab@bluellp.com - and - Richard Schulte, Esq. WRIGHT & SCHULTE LLC 865 S. Dixie Dr. Vandalia, OH 45377 Telephone: (937) 435-9999 Facsimile: (937)435-7511 E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com - and - Julie Nepveu, Esq. AARP FOUNDATION 601 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20049 Telephone: (202) 434-2075 Facsimile: (202) 434-6424 E-mail: jnepveu@aarp.org MDL 3035: Alexander Wins Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alexander v. Harris et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01128 (W.D. Tenn., Oct. 2, 2025), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order granting motion for class certification and dispositive motion briefing. Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Increase the Page Limits for the memorandum in support of their renewed Motion for Class Certification, the memoranda in support of their Motions for Summary Judgment, and the statements of material facts in support of their Motions for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiffs may file a memorandum in support of class certification of up to 45 pages, memoranda in support of summary judgment of up to 25 pages, and statements of material facts in support of summary judgment of up to 20 pages. 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 Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XnU1X3 at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3035: Carmichael Files Bid For Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARMICHAEL, JR. et al v. HARRIS et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01127 (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to enter an order certifying the following Class: "All persons who were participants, or were those Participants' respective beneficiaries entitled to benefits, in the African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial Retirement Annuity Plan on June 30, 2021." All current and past Defendants are excluded from the Class. The Plaintiffs request that the Court grant their motion and enter an order granting certification of the Class, appointing undersigned counsel as Class Counsel, and appointing the named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives. The Carmichael suit is consolidated in AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION, MDL 3035. These putative class actions present common factual questions arising from the allegation that the AME Church, senior Church officials, and financial companies contracted to administer the Church retirement plan were negligent in managing the plan and breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants, resulting in substantial losses to the plan that were discovered in 2021. All actions involve overlapping putative classes of participating employees, and investigations that will affect all actions reportedly are ongoing. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JHPkPL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew E. Lee, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 421-7764 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, TN 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 Raleigh, NC 27602 Telephone: (919)833-1931 Facsimile: (919) 833-8009 E-mail: dab@bluellp.com - and - Richard Schulte, Esq. WRIGHT & SCHULTE LLC 865 S. Dixie Dr. Vandalia, OH 45377 Telephone: (937) 435-9999 Facsimile: (937)435-7511 E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com - and - Julie Nepveu, Esq. AARP FOUNDATION 601 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20049 Telephone: (202) 434-2075 Facsimile: (202) 434-6424 E-mail: jnepveu@aarp.org MDL 3035: Carmichael Wins Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARMICHAEL, JR. et al v. HARRIS, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01127 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order granting motion for class certification and dispositive motion briefing. Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Increase the Page Limits for the memorandum in support of their renewed Motion for Class Certification, the memoranda in support of their Motions for Summary Judgment, and the statements of material facts in support of their Motions for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiffs may file a memorandum in support of class certification of up to 45 pages, memoranda in support of summary judgment of up to 25 pages, and statements of material facts in support of summary judgment of up to 20 pages. The CarMichael suit is consolidated in AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION, MDL 3035. These putative class actions present common factual questions arising from the allegation that the AME Church, senior Church officials, and financial companies contracted to administer the Church retirement plan were negligent in managing the plan and breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants, resulting in substantial losses to the plan that were discovered in 2021. All actions involve overlapping putative classes of participating employees, and investigations that will affect all actions reportedly are ongoing. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kKHlGz at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3035: Ewins Wins Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ewing v. Newport Group, Inc. et al., Case No. (Court), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order granting motion for class certification and dispositive motion briefing. Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Increase the Page Limits for the memorandum in support of their renewed Motion for Class Certification, the memoranda in support of their Motions for Summary Judgment, and the statements of material facts in support of their Motions for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiffs may file a memorandum in support of class certification of up to 45 pages, memoranda in support of summary judgment of up to 25 pages, and statements of material facts in support of summary judgment of up to 20 pages. The Ewing suit is consolidated in AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION, MDL 3035. These putative class actions present common factual questions arising from the allegation that the AME Church, senior Church officials, and financial companies contracted to administer the Church retirement plan were negligent in managing the plan and breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants, resulting in substantial losses to the plan that were discovered in 2021. All actions involve overlapping putative classes of participating employees, and investigations that will affect all actions reportedly are ongoing. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NHLYsx at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3035: Jackson Files Bid For Class Certification --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jackson v. Newport Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02174 (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to enter an order certifying the following Class: "All persons who were participants, or were those Participants' respective beneficiaries entitled to benefits, in the African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial Retirement Annuity Plan on June 30, 2021." All current and past Defendants are excluded from the Class. The Plaintiffs request that the Court grant their motion and enter an order granting certification of the Class, appointing undersigned counsel as Class Counsel, and appointing the named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives. The Jackson suit is consolidated in AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION, MDL 3035. These putative class actions present common factual questions arising from the allegation that the AME Church, senior Church officials, and financial companies contracted to administer the Church retirement plan were negligent in managing the plan and breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants, resulting in substantial losses to the plan that were discovered in 2021. All actions involve overlapping putative classes of participating employees, and investigations that will affect all actions reportedly are ongoing. Newport operates as retirement services firm. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=44dIsD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew E. Lee, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 421-7764 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, TN 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 Raleigh, NC 27602 Telephone: (919)833-1931 Facsimile: (919) 833-8009 E-mail: dab@bluellp.com - and - Richard Schulte, Esq. WRIGHT & SCHULTE LLC 865 S. Dixie Dr. Vandalia, OH 45377 Telephone: (937) 435-9999 Facsimile: (937)435-7511 E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com - and - Julie Nepveu, Esq. AARP FOUNDATION 601 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20049 Telephone: (202) 434-2075 Facsimile: (202) 434-6424 E-mail: jnepveu@aarp.org MDL 3035: Plaintiffs Win Class Cert Bid in Retirement Fund Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IN RE: AME Church Employee Retirement Fund Litigation (MDL 3035), Case No. (Court), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order granting motion for class certification and dispositive motion briefing. Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Increase the Page Limits for the memorandum in support of their renewed Motion for Class Certification, the memoranda in support of their Motions for Summary Judgment, and the statements of material facts in support of their Motions for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiffs may file a memorandum in support of class certification of up to 45 pages, memoranda in support of summary judgment of up to 25 pages, and statements of material facts in support of summary judgment of up to 20 pages. These putative class actions present common factual questions arising from the allegation that the AME Church, senior Church officials, and financial companies contracted to administer the Church retirement plan were negligent in managing the plan and breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants, resulting in substantial losses to the plan that were discovered in 2021. All actions involve overlapping putative classes of participating employees, and investigations that will affect all actions reportedly are ongoing. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fi6FXl at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3035: Russ Files Bid For Class Certification ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Russ, et al., v. Newport Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01129 (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to enter an order certifying the following Class: "All persons who were participants, or were those Participants' respective beneficiaries entitled to benefits, in the African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial Retirement Annuity Plan on June 30, 2021." All current and past Defendants are excluded from the Class. The Plaintiffs request that the Court grant their motion and enter an order granting certification of the Class, appointing undersigned counsel as Class Counsel, and appointing the named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives. The Russ suit is consolidated in AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION, MDL 3035. These putative class actions present common factual questions arising from the allegation that the AME Church, senior Church officials, and financial companies contracted to administer the Church retirement plan were negligent in managing the plan and breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants, resulting in substantial losses to the plan that were discovered in 2021. All actions involve overlapping putative classes of participating employees, and investigations that will affect all actions reportedly are ongoing. Newport operates as retirement services firm. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=prOptZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew E. Lee, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 421-7764 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, TN 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 Raleigh, NC 27602 Telephone: (919)833-1931 Facsimile: (919) 833-8009 E-mail: dab@bluellp.com - and - Richard Schulte, Esq. WRIGHT & SCHULTE LLC 865 S. Dixie Dr. Vandalia, OH 45377 Telephone: (937) 435-9999 Facsimile: (937)435-7511 E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com - and - Julie Nepveu, Esq. AARP FOUNDATION 601 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20049 Telephone: (202) 434-2075 Facsimile: (202) 434-6424 E-mail: jnepveu@aarp.org MDL 3035: Russ Wins Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Russ et al v. Newport Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01129 (W.D. Tenn., Oct. 1, 2025), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order granting motion for class certification and dispositive motion briefing. Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Increase the Page Limits for the memorandum in support of their renewed Motion for Class Certification, the memoranda in support of their Motions for Summary Judgment, and the statements of material facts in support of their Motions for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiffs may file a memorandum in support of class certification of up to 45 pages, memoranda in support of summary judgment of up to 25 pages, and statements of material facts in support of summary judgment of up to 20 pages. The Russ uit is consolidated in AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION, MDL 3035. These putative class actions present common factual questions arising from the allegation that the AME Church, senior Church officials, and financial companies contracted to administer the Church retirement plan were negligent in managing the plan and breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants, resulting in substantial losses to the plan that were discovered in 2021. All actions involve overlapping putative classes of participating employees, and investigations that will affect all actions reportedly are ongoing. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZkGMNC at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3035: Wade Files Bid For Class Certification ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wade, et al v. Newport Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01126 (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to enter an order certifying the following Class: "All persons who were participants, or were those Participants' respective beneficiaries entitled to benefits, in the African Methodist Episcopal Church Ministerial Retirement Annuity Plan on June 30, 2021." All current and past Defendants are excluded from the Class. The Plaintiffs request that the Court grant their motion and enter an order granting certification of the Class, appointing undersigned counsel as Class Counsel, and appointing the named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives. The Wade suit is consolidated in AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION, MDL 3035. These putative class actions present common factual questions arising from the allegation that the AME Church, senior Church officials, and financial companies contracted to administer the Church retirement plan were negligent in managing the plan and breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants, resulting in substantial losses to the plan that were discovered in 2021. All actions involve overlapping putative classes of participating employees, and investigations that will affect all actions reportedly are ongoing. Newport operates as retirement services firm. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k7CYec at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew E. Lee, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 421-7764 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, TN 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 Raleigh, NC 27602 Telephone: (919)833-1931 Facsimile: (919) 833-8009 E-mail: dab@bluellp.com - and - Richard Schulte, Esq. WRIGHT & SCHULTE LLC 865 S. Dixie Dr. Vandalia, OH 45377 Telephone: (937) 435-9999 Facsimile: (937)435-7511 E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com - and - Julie Nepveu, Esq. AARP FOUNDATION 601 E Street, NW Washington, DC 20049 Telephone: (202) 434-2075 Facsimile: (202) 434-6424 E-mail: jnepveu@aarp.org MDL 3035: Wade Wins Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wade, et al v. Newport Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01126 (W.D. Tenn., Oct. 2, 2025), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order granting motion for class certification and dispositive motion briefing. Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Increase the Page Limits for the memorandum in support of their renewed Motion for Class Certification, the memoranda in support of their Motions for Summary Judgment, and the statements of material facts in support of their Motions for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiffs may file a memorandum in support of class certification of up to 45 pages, memoranda in support of summary judgment of up to 25 pages, and statements of material facts in support of summary judgment of up to 20 pages. The Wade suit is consolidated in AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION, MDL 3035. These putative class actions present common factual questions arising from the allegation that the AME Church, senior Church officials, and financial companies contracted to administer the Church retirement plan were negligent in managing the plan and breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants, resulting in substantial losses to the plan that were discovered in 2021. All actions involve overlapping putative classes of participating employees, and investigations that will affect all actions reportedly are ongoing. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ci805f at no extra charge.[CC] MERCER STREET: Fedak Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Wiktoria Fedak, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. MERCER STREET HOSPITALITY, LLC, SESSANTA, LLC d/b/a BISTROT LEO, d/b/a BUTTERFLY SOHO, d/b/a A60 ROOFTOP, and JOHN MCDONALD, Case No. 1:25-cv-08430 (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 time-shaving; unpaid wages due to improperly deducted meal credits; unpaid overtime premiums; unpaid wages due to improperly deducted meal credits; illegal retention of gratuities; unpaid wages, including overtime, due to an invalid tip credit; liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff was not paid the proper overtime premiums of one-and-one half times her regular rate for hours worked over forty in a given week. The Plaintiff and Class Members were not paid all of their wages or their overtime premiums at the rate of time and one half of the regular hourly rate, for all hours worked, due to Defendants' policy of automatically deducting a half-hour for meals. Due to the level of traffic in the restaurant, Plaintiff was required to work through the meal break. However, even on days when she worked through the break, Defendants still deducted thirty minutes from her compensable time. When Plaintiff noticed this, she would complain to her managers. However, they never stopped automatically deducting her time and she was not paid for up to two and a half hours per week of work, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a Hostess for Defendants. The Defendants own and operate 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 MERRILL LYNCH: Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Sought in Valelly -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sarah Valelly v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-07998-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court granting the proposed class certification briefing schedule and sealing procedures pursuant to the Court's Aug. 6, 2025, Order: Following Defendant's service of its Sept. 26, 2025, opposition, the parties have conferred and propose that the Plaintiff serve her reply papers by Friday, Oct. 24, 2025. The parties will work collaboratively and in good faith to resolve any confidentiality matters so that the Plaintiff may e-file her reply papers promptly to expedite the motion's formal submission date, and such filing shall occur no later than Nov. 7, 2025. Separately, the Plaintiff's opening brief was 18 pages and contained 5,677 words. The Defendant's opposition brief was 23 pages and contained 7,344 words. In order to sufficiently respond to the Defendant's arguments, the Plaintiff requests an extension of the word limit for her reply from 3,500 words to 6,500 words. Defendant takes no position on the Plaintiff's request. Merrill is an American investment management and wealth management division of Bank of America. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dPw8Gv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Finkel, Esq. Adam J. Blander, Esq. Philip M. Black, Esq. Antoinette A. Adesanya, Esq. Emer Burke, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 The Defendant is represented by: Lara Samet Buchwald, Esq. Cristina M. Rincon, Esq. Chui-Lai Cheung, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 450-400 E-mail: lara.buchwald@davispolk.com cristina.rincon@davispolk.com chui-lai.cheung@davispolk.com MICHELLE BAASS: Class Settlement in Hinkle Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WYLENE LENA HINKLE and DENNIS GASSAWAY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and THE CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF THE BLIND (a California nonprofit corporation), v. MICHELLE BAASS, in her capacity as Director of California Department of Health Care Services; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY; COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; Case No. 3:18-cv-06430-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Chesney entered an order as follows: 1. The Court certifies the Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2). 2. The Court appoints Plaintiff Wylene Lena Hinkle, the Plaintiff Dennis Gassaway, and the California Council of the Blind as Settlement Class representatives. 3. The Court appoints Disability Rights Advocates, Disability Rights California, and Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund Plaintiffs' attorneys of record, as Class Counsel. 4. The Parties' joint motion for final approval of the agreement, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Autumn Elliott in support of the Parties' joint motion for preliminary approval is granted. 5. the Plaintiffs' motion for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs is granted. The Defendants are directed to pay the Plaintiffs' counsel the amount of $1,550,000 within 60 days of the date of the instant order. 6. The Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter during the term of the Agreement for the purpose of enforcement thereof. The Court finds that the Settlement Class satisfies Rule 23(b)(2). Thus, certification is granted. The conditionally certified Settlement Class, as stipulated by the Parties, is defined as: "Individuals in the State of California who are applicants or beneficiaries of Medi-Cal and who need written materials regarding Medi-Cal in an Alternative Format due to a vision- related disability." The Court now finds that the Settlement Class meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2), as discussed below, and it is certified. The Plaintiffs and their counsel do not appear to have any conflicts of interest with other Settlement Class Members and appear to have vigorously prosecuted the action. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=msGpN3 at no extra charge.[CC] MICROSOFT CORP: Bryant Sues Over Generative AI Market Monopoly -------------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL BRYANT; DOMINIQUE CAVALIER; VICTORIA DONOVAN; ALICE EIDSON; ALEXANDER HALLORAN; TRENTON MARSOLEK; SAMIR OUIJDANI; ZACHARY PAYNE; JAKE WOLFSON; CARA ZAJAC; and JASON ZHANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-08733 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 13, 2025) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant is engaged in placing anticompetitive restraint upon OpenAI and its customers -- specifically, ChatGPT subscribers -- by OpenAI's horizontal competitor Microsoft. As a result of this restraint, ChatGPT prices were inflated since the service's inception, with price levels reaching an eye-popping 100 to 200 times competitors' prices on a per-token basis amidst a February 2025 price war. A secretive agreement struck between OpenAI and Microsoft early in OpenAI's development allowed Microsoft to control the supply of compute to its horizontal competitor's products, and for years after OpenAI essentially created the Consumer Generative AI Market ("CGAI") in late 2022 with the launch of ChatGPT, that is exactly what Microsoft did. It used an exclusivity clause to restrict OpenAI's product output, and to impose a price (or, conversely, output and quality) floor on its competitor OpenAI's ChatGPT products. Microsoft harmed Consumer Generative AI purchasers -- most notably, ChatGPT subscribers -- for years by mercilessly choking OpenAI's compute supply, thereby supracompetitively inflating the then-market leader's prices while Microsoft hurried to ready its own competing CGAI products, including Copilot. Microsoft Corporation operates as a software company. The Company offers applications, extra cloud storage, and advanced security solutions. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yavar Bathaee, Esq. Andrew C. Wolinsky, Esq. BATHAEE DUNNE LLP 445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (332) 322-8835 Email: yavar@bathaeedunne.com awolinsky@bathaeedunne.com - and - Brian J. Dunne, Esq. Edward M. Grauman, Esq. BATHAEE DUNNE LLP 901 South MoPac Expressway Barton Oaks Plaza I, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (213) 462-2772 Email: bdunne@bathaeedunne.com egrauman@bathaeedunne.com - and - Allison Watson, Esq. BATHAEE DUNNE LLP 3420 Bristol Street, Suite 600 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (213) 462-2772 Email: awatson@bathaeedunne.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Hatch Suit Transferred to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joan Hatch, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01107 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-08655-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: Heims Suit Transferred to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Connie Heims, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01361 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-08656-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: Liberatore Suit Transferred to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joseph Liberatore, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01111 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-08659-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: Luna Suit Transferred to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Charaline Luna, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01112 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-08660-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: McCaskill Suit Transferred to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Gary McCaskill, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01364 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-08661-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: Mumma Suit Transferred to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Diane Mumma, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01365 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-08662-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 MOR CONSTRUCTION: Horner Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- JOHN HORNER and DEAN DICRESCENZO, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MOR CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., f/k/a MOORE OUTDOOR REJUVENATION, INC.; VISU-SEWER, LLC; VISU-SEWER EAST LLC; and VISU-SEWER OF OHIO, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 251000323 (Pa. Com. Pl., Philadelphia County, October 2, 2025) seeks all available relief from the Defendants' violations of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the common law. According to the complaint, the Defendants intentionally failed to pay the wages, including prevailing minimum wages and overtime wages due for all work performed within the scope of the Public Contracts of Plaintiffs and Class Members. The Plaintiffs were employed by MOR as truck drivers. On Public Projects, the Plaintiffs would operate dump trucks on the construction site. That is, Plaintiffs would operate their company-provided trucks so as to haul asphalt and other materials throughout the worksite. Visu-Sewer operates a nationwide sewer construction and repair business.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Goodley, Esq. Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq. GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 394-0541 E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com ryan@gmlaborlaw.com MPARTICLE INC: Hayward Privacy Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled PETER C. HAYWARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MPARTICLE, INC., and ROKT US CORP., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-03551, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on October 2, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-08173-PAE to the proceeding. The complaint alleges that mParticle's interception of the contents of Plaintiff's and Class Members' communications with third parties through its tracking technology and its installation of a tracking device on each of the websites used across the Internet violate Cal. Penal Code as well as other laws. mParticle, Inc. operates as a software development company.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew Lewitz, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (213) 892-7937 E-mail: mlewitz@cozen.com - and - Erin Hines, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 123 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 474-4490 E-mail: ebolanhines@cozen.com NATURAL CATCH: Fernandez Balks at Blind User-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. NATURAL CATCH SEAFOODS LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-08355 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 9, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://naturalcatchtuna.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff 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. The Defendant offers the commercial website, https://naturalcatchtuna.com/, to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State.[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, New York 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal NESTLE HEALTH: Ford Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA FORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nestle Health Science US Holdings, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11184 (N.D. Ill., September 16, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website contains significant access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. Among other things, due to Defendant's lack of adequate labeling on its website, the Plaintiff and blind customers cannot make purchases or inquiries as to Defendant's merchandise, nor can they enter their personal identification and financial information with confidence and security. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Headquartered in Chicago, IL, Nestle Health Science US Holdings, Inc. owns and operates the website, https://www.puritan.com, which offers vitamins, minerals, herbs, and nutritional supplements for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 554-0237 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law NORDSTROM INC: Improperly Collects Sales & Use Tax, Rapps Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- REBECCA RAPPS, individually and all others similarly situated v. NORDSTROM, INC. d/b/a NORDSTROM and NORDSTROM RACK, Case No. 1:25-cv-24667-CMA (S.D. Fla., Oct. 9, 2025) is a class action complaint against Nordstrom for its practice of improperly charging and collecting sales and use tax from all persons who purchased tax-exempt Baby and Toddler products in Florida for household use during the period from July 1, 2023, to the present, while being residents of Florida in a violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). The Defendant charges and collects sales and use tax from Florida purchasers of tax-exempt Baby and Toddler Products in Florida. The tax is unlawfully levied and collected because the Products are exempt from sales and use tax under Title XIV Section 212.08(7)(qqq). The Plaintiff seeks both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of the proposed Class, including, but not limited to, restoring monies to members of the proposed Class for the aggregate unlawfully charged taxes, and enjoining Nordstrom's continued misconduct. In 2022, in an effort to reduce the financial strain on families with young children, the Florida legislature proposed a temporary tax exemption for certain Baby and Toddler products including diapers and baby and toddler clothing, apparel, and shoes. The exemption was put into effect on July 1, 2022, and initially continued through June 30, 2023. Effective July 1, 2023, the Florida legislature extended the exemption and expanded its scope to include a broader range of baby and toddler products, including among other things, clothing, apparel, and shoes and certain other merchandise for babies and toddlers. Nordstrom sells a variety of these Baby and Toddler Products including, but not limited to, baby and toddler clothing, apparel, and shoes. The Defendant markets, offers, and sells these Baby and Toddler Products to consumers in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq. James R. DeMay, Esq. J. Hunter Bryson, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 3833 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, FL 33713 Telephone: (813) 786-8622 E-mail: jcohen@brysonpllc.com jdemay@brysonpllc.com hbryson@brysonpllc.com - and - Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Jeremy Francis, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12061 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com francisj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - David J. Tayar, Esq. Will Shuman, Esq. TAYAR, SHUMAN & ASSOCIATES LLP 3324 Parsons Blvd, Ste. 3F Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (917) 750-7740 E-mail: dtayar@tayarshuman.com wshuman@tayarshuman.com NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Bias Training ------------------------------------------------------------------- Carlotta Angiolillo, Nineth Kanieski Koso, and Ben Shapiro, writing for The Daily Northwestern, report that Northwestern University Graduate Workers for Palestine and two graduate students filed a lawsuit Wednesday, October 15, against NU, alleging its bias training discriminates against "Palestinian students, supporters and associates" who are required to complete it. It also alleges NU violated the Illinois Worker Freedom of Speech Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The complaint alleges an "unequal application" of student conduct policies, "prohibition of Palestine solidarity speech" and use of an "unscholarly and discriminatory definition of antisemitism." The lawsuit, filed in federal court for the Northern District of Illinois, specifically finds fault with NU's antisemitism portion of the mandatory bias training, which was made in collaboration with the Jewish United Fund. The bias training, which was first sent out to students in February, is titled "Building a Community of Respect and Breaking Down Bias." It includes videos on antisemitism, University policies, Student Code of Conduct changes from 2024 and bias against Palestinian, Arab and Muslim communities. As part of the module titled "University Discrimination, Harassment, and Religious Accommodations Policies," the University cites a definition of antisemitism endorsed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which is consistent with the definition the federal government uses. Critics of the IHRA's definition state that it has been used to label any criticism of Israel as antisemitic, though the IHRA explicitly states that "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic." With registration holds on their accounts, some students who have not completed the training will soon face escalating consequences, which include potential loss of student status, financial aid and on-campus housing, according to a Sept. 16 email to students who had not completed the training. Students who failed to register for Fall 2025 classes before June 23, the date by which NU required the bias training to be completed, will have their student status "discontinued" on Oct. 20, the beginning of the sixth week of the quarter. Those who registered for Fall 2025 classes before the deadline -- including both named plaintiffs, second-year history Ph.D. student Ifeayin Eziamaka Ogbuli and fifth-year media, technology and society Ph.D. candidate Marwa Tahboub -- will not face consequences until Feb. 2, during the Winter Quarter, according to University court filings. The lawsuit does not list the names of any other members of the class, due to the alleged possibility of retaliation by the University, federal government and "Zionist organizations." Due to the imminent Oct. 20 deadline, the plaintiffs filed a petition for a temporary restraining order, which would halt any consequences some members of the class could face from not completing the bias training. NU asked the Court to deny the plaintiff's request and said the "alleged 'emergency' is one of their own making." In a status update call, Judge Georgia Alexakis declined to make an immediate decision given the nuance of the case and set a hearing to address the request. The lawsuit cites the Illinois Worker Freedom of Speech Act, a 2025 law that bars punishment against employees if they decline to attend employer-sponsored meetings or listen to communications from employers intended to convey the employer's opinion on religious or political matters. Plaintiffs claim that, as graduate workers, they are employees of the University, and the training therefore violates state law. The law notably includes exceptions, including when the communication is "intended to foster a civil and collaborative workplace or reduce or prevent workplace harassment or discrimination." The lawsuit argues that the commentary in the training restricts students' ability to advocate for "Palestinian liberation, equal rights, an end to apartheid in Palestine, and for the rights of Palestine's indigenous people (Jewish and non-Jewish)." The suit also claims that NU has not "issued any comparable threats nor registration holds" to students who did not complete the mandatory sexual misconduct training. Before the time of publication, the University did not respond to a question about whether the plaintiff's claim is true and whether there are students who have not completed the sexual misconduct training. The lawsuit alleges that NU intentionally discriminated against the plaintiffs due to their race, ethnicity or association with Jewish and Arab students who oppose or criticize Zionism. Students' opposition to the bias training, JUF video and associated attestations, which the lawsuit describes as "discriminatory requirements," led to retaliation from NU, the suit claims. It states that students continue to suffer "adverse actions," including the possible revocation of their student status. The University declined to comment on the lawsuit. [GN] NTT DATA: Underpays Employees, Robinson Suit Says ------------------------------------------------- KIA ROBINSON and ALEXIS KELLER LAMONDE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NTT DATA SERVICES, LLC and TRANSACTION APPLICATIONS GROUP, INC., jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-01076-ALM (E.D. Tex., October 2, 2025) is a collective and class action complaint brought by Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons employed by Defendants, arising from Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Nebraska Wage and Hour Act, the Nebraska's Wage Payment and Collection Act, and common law. The Defendants violated the FLSA and common law by systematically failing to compensate their representatives for work tasks completed before and after their scheduled shifts when they were not logged into Defendants' timekeeping system. This policy resulted in representatives not being paid for all overtime hours worked, overtime gap time when associated with unpaid overtime, and in non-overtime workweeks for regular hours. More specifically, the Defendants failed to compensate their Representatives for the substantial time they spent performing essential work tasks prior to clocking into and after clocking out of Defendants' timekeeping system at the end of each shift, and before and after their unpaid meal periods, says the suit. Plaintiff Kia Robinson is a resident of Memphis, Tennessee and worked for Defendants as a remote non-exempt Representative from approximately August 2023 until February 2025. NTT Data Services LLC offers business and technology services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Kathryn E. Milz, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com kmilz@sommerspc.com O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Bid for Class Certification Due Nov. 27, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES EDWARD MCCORMACK III, v. O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE, INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-00500-DCJ-DJA (W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Ayo entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. Initial Disclosures: Oct. 13, 2025 2. Deadline to Join parties or amend pleadings: Dec. 31, 2025 3. The Plaintiff's expert disclosures: Feb. 13, 2026 4. The Defendant's expert disclosures: March 13, 2026 5. Fact Discovery (excluding experts) to Close: July 17, 2026 6. Motion(s) for summary judgment: Sept. 18, 2026 7. Motion for class certification due: Nov. 27, 2026 8. Response to motion for class certification: Dec. 28, 2026 9. Replies for summary judgment: Jan. 11, 2027 O'Reilly engages in the retail of automotive aftermarket parts, tools, supplies, equipment, and accessories. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DE12f8 at no extra charge.[CC] PEARL RIVER, LA: Kuchler Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation --------------------------------------------------------------- SETH KUCHLER, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated Plaintiff v. JOE LEE, in his official capacity as Mayor of Pearl River; JACK SESSIONS, in his official capacity as Chief of Police of Pearl River; and TOWN OF PEARL RIVER, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02064-NJB-MBN (E.D. La., October 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. When Mr. Kuchler worked in excess of 40 hours per week, instead of receiving proper overtime compensation, he was compensated under the designation of "miscellaneous pay," wherein he was compensated at regular hourly rate of $19.50, rather than the legally required overtime rate of $29.25. As a result of his continued complaints regarding pay issues, Plaintiff Kuchler was subsequently given a poor evaluation. Subsequently, Mr. Kuchler was terminated in retaliation a week and a half after, on July 15, 2024, says the suit. Plaintiff Kuchler worked as a patrol officer with Pearl River Police Department from October 2, 2023 until his termination on July 15, 2024. Joe Lee is sued in his official capacity as Mayor of Pearl River, Louisiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth C. Bordes, Esq. Abigail Floresca, Esq. KENNETH C. BORDES, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC 3914 Canal St. New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 588-2700 Facsimile: (504) 708-1717 E-mail: kcb@kennethbordes.com PESCE MARBLE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Nichols Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MELANIE NICHOLS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PESCE MARBLE & GRANITE, LLC, and JOE PESCE, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00713-MRB (S.D. Ohio, October 2, 2025) is a collective action and class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, to recover unpaid overtime premiums and other wage payments from the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Rev. Code. The complaint asserts that the Defendants continue to employ numerous employees, including Plaintiff, who are not paid the proper overtime premium for all hours worked, and are further not being paid all hours owed to them. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful action, Plaintiff and the Ohio Collective have suffered, and continue to suffer, economic harm in the form of lost wages, attorneys' fees, and costs, says the complaint. Pesce Marble & Granite is a marble and granite retailer which transacts business on an interstate basis.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Okiishi, Esq. FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC 4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225 Cincinnati, OH 45245 Telephone: (513) 943-6659 Facsimile: (513) 943-6669 E-mail: matt@finneylawfirm.com PRETTY FARM: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Echols Says ------------------------------------------------------------- TAZINIQUE ECHOLS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pretty Farm Girl, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12105 (N.D. Ill., October 3, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.prettyfarmgirl.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On July 4, 2025, the Plaintiff searched Google for online stores offering natural and organic skincare and beauty products and came across Prettyfarmgirl.com. However, as she tried to navigate the site and complete her purchase, she encountered several accessibility barriers that significantly hindered her ability to proceed. In particular, a pop-up appeared without an explicit alert, making it difficult for her to know when a visual context change had occurred. Due to these accessibility issues, the Plaintiff was unable to effectively browse the website using her screen reader and was ultimately prevented from completing her purchase of the desired product. These access barriers have caused Prettyfarmgirl.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Pretty Farm Girl'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. Pretty Farm Girl, LLC operates the website that offers a variety of facial skincare, hair and body care, hair products and eye serum.[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 PROSPER FUNDING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Tammar Says ----------------------------------------------------------- MOUNIR TAMMAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PROSPER FUNDING, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-08634 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 9, 2025) is a class action against Prosper for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals personally identifying information, including confidential, proprietary, and personal information, including Social Security numbers. Despite Prosper's duty to safeguard the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, their Private Information in Defendant's possession was compromised when an unauthorized party gained access to Defendant's cloud storage platform and exfiltrated sensitive data stored therein on or about September 1, 2025. The Data Breach occurred when cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PII that was being kept, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members are individuals who were required to indirectly and/or directly provide Defendant with their Private Information. By collecting, storing, and maintaining Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, Prosper has a resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the Private Information that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Prosper is a company that operates an online peer-to-peer lending platform connecting individual and institutional investors with consumer borrowers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: (Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 117 E Colorado Blvd, Ste 600 Pasadena, CA 91105-3712 Telephone: (213) 723-0707 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 E-mail: ekim@lcllp.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com PROVIDENT CARE INC: Grimson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Provident Care, Inc. The case is styled as Stacy L. Grimson, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Transform Sears Home Services, LLC, Does 1-10, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0014893 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Oct. 10, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Provident Care -- https://www.providentcare.com/ -- provides personal care, companion care, dementia support, diabetes care, and 24-hour home care for seniors in Modesto and surrounding cities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Markham, Esq. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 888 Prospect St, Ste 200 La Jolla, CA 92037-4261 Phone: 619-399-3995 Fax: 619-615-2067 Email: dmarkham@markham-law.com RAISING CANE'S USA: Xatruch Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Raising Cane's USA, LLC. The case is styled as Elizabeth Xatruch, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Raising Cane's USA, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0014868 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Oct. 10, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Raising Cane's Restaurants, LLC, doing business as Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers -- https://www.raisingcanes.com/ -- is an American fast casual chain specializing in chicken fingers founded in 1996 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com REJUVALINE MEDSPA: Herrera Sues Over Disability Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Herrera, on behalf of others similarly situated v. REJUVALINE MEDSPA, INC, a Florida for-profit corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-24679-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://rejuvalinemedspa.com (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public with information on the locations of Defendant's physical health spas. The Website also allows the public to make appointments to receive Defendant's spa services at the physical health spas, thus acting as a critical point of booking appointments that can also be booked in and from the physical health spas. 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 three medical and wellness spas.[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 REST ASSURED ROOFING: Torres Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Belisario Torres, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REST ASSURED ROOFING AND RESTORATION, INC., and NICHOLAS SEPE, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-05716 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2025), is brought for damages and other redress based upon willful violations that Defendants committed of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by: the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the overtime provisions of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. ("NYCRR"). Throughout his employment, but as is relevant herein, for the six-year period pre-dating the commencement of this action, plus an additional 228 days pursuant to former Governor Andrew M. Cuomo's executive tolling orders, until September 2024 ("the Relevant Period"), Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff the overtime wages lawfully due to him under the FLSA and the NYLL. Specifically, throughout the Relevant Period, Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, in excess of forty hours each workweek, or virtually each week, yet in exchange, Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat weekly salary that did not include overtime premiums for the hours that Plaintiff worked in a week in excess of forty, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a construction worker, in New York, from July 2002 to February 15, 2025. The Defendant is a New Jersey corporation that operates a roofing business in at least New York and New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Ryan S. Riger, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 248-5550 Fax: (516) 248-6027 RIDDLE'S GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Brolin Due August 6, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KANE BROLIN, v. RIDDLE'S GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00606-SJF (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Scott J. Frankel entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. The parties will exchange the information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) by Oct. 9, 2025. 2 2. The last date for the parties to amend the pleadings without leave of court is Dec. 1, 2025. 3. The parties have agreed that the deadline for the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification is Aug. 6, 2026. 4. The parties have agreed that the deadline for completion of fact discovery is March 24, 2026. 5. The last date for the completion of all discovery is June 5, 2026. 6. The deadline to file any dispositive motions is July 6, 2026. 7. The deadline for the parties to engage in mediation is June 18, 2026. 8. The Court vacates the preliminary pretrial conference scheduled for Oct. 7, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. ET. Riddle's operates jewelry stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V8oNUP at no extra charge.[CC] ROBERT LESSER: Class Cert. Bid in Dumas Suit Dec. 1 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONI R. DUMAS, v. ROBERT E. LESSER, et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-03979-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Jeffery L. Schmehl entered an order that oral argument on Plaintiff's motion for class certification, followed by a status conference, is scheduled for Dec. 1, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. in the Reading Courthouse, which is located at 201 Penn Street, Fifth Floor, Reading, Pennsylvania 19601. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G8NvB0 at no extra charge.[CC] ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE: Golant Sues Over Unfair Insurance Policies --------------------------------------------------------------- MARGERY GOLANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-62052-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 13, 2025) seeks a declaratory relief on behalf of a class consisting of all borrowers with mortgage loans serviced by RoundPoint encumbered by a mortgage written on the Single Family Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac Uniform Instrument and secured by real property located within the state of Florida who have received insurance proceeds arising from homeowners insurance claims, and whose insurance proceeds are currently being held in escrow by RoundPoint pursuant to its unlawful policies. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that in order to delay or avoid disbursing insurance funds to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated borrowers and thereby enhance its float income, RoundPoint has developed an extensive and burdensome set of documentary requirements that it demands borrowers comply with before it will disburse their insurance proceeds. These include obtaining two different sworn affidavits from the borrowers themselves, a third affidavit from the borrowers' contractors, even though no contractor may have been involved, insurance adjusters' work product, and invoices from the contractor, says the suit. RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing LLC, doing business as RoundPoint, operates as a non-bank mortgage company. The Company offers reverse mortgage and insurance, payment options, and network capital funding services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey N. Golant Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY N. GOLANT, P.A. 2835 NW Executive Center Dr. Ste. 100 Boca Raton, FL 33431-8510 Telephone: (954) 942-5270 Facsimile: (954) 942-5272 Email: Jgolant@jeffreygolantlaw.com RXSIGHT INC: Gemesi Sues Over Securities Law Breaches ----------------------------------------------------- OLGA GÉMESI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RxSIGHT, INC., RON KURTZ, and SHELLEY THUNEN, Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-02093 (C.D. Cal., September 16, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5. The Plaintiff brings this securities fraud class action on behalf of all purchasers of RxSight common stock between May 7, 2024 and July 8, 2025, both dates inclusive against RxSight, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer for their false and misleading statements about its RxSight's field teams. Throughout the class period, the Defendants represented that RxSight's field teams effectively trained and supported practices to accelerate growth. In truth, RxSight's field organization was inadequately structured and underperforming; newer cohorts needed more support than prior cohorts and were adopting more slowly; and utilization across the installed base was declining. As a result, incremental light delivery device placements did not translate into expected intraocular light adjustable lens volume, undermining the Company's growth model, says the suit. Headquartered in Aliso Viejo, California, RxSight is a commercial-stage medical technology company focused on the treatment of cataracts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Darren J. Robbins, Esq. Danielle S. Myers, Esq. Francisco J. Mejia, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: drobbins@rgrdlaw.com dmyers@rgrdlaw.com fmejia@rgrdlaw.com SALLY BEAUTY: Beltran Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Airam Beltran, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc., Sally Beauty Supply LLC, Case No. 25STCV29787 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 10, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.sallybeautyholdings.com/default.asp -- is a global distributor and specialty retailer offering professional beauty products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com SHEPHERD'S DREAM: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Henry Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Shepherd's Dream, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12067 (N.D. Ill., October 2, 2025) is a civil rights action against Shepherd's Dream 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 persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On August 22, 2025, the Plaintiff searched Google for online stores offering organic wool bedding and came across Defendant's website. However, in the process of navigating the website and attempting to complete her purchase, she encountered multiple accessibility barriers that significantly hindered her ability to proceed. Specifically, a pop-up window appeared on the website, which made it difficult for her to access the underlying content and disrupted her navigation flow. Due to these accessibility issues, the Plaintiff was unable to effectively browse the website using her screen reader software and was ultimately prevented from completing the purchase of her desired product. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Shepherd's Dream'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. Shepherd's Dream, LLC operates the website that offers a variety of mattresses, toppers, apparel, blankets, comforters, and pillows.[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: (716) 281-5496 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law SOLIDQUOTE LLC: Bid for Leave to Restrict Reply Brief Granted ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONDA KLASSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SOLIDQUOTE LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00318-GPG-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge N. Reid Neureiter entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to restrict certain portions of her reply brief in further support of her motion for class certification. The Clerk of Court is directed to maintain ECF No. 149 under Level 1 Restriction. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kDt2Nf at no extra charge.[CC] SOUTHERN GRAPHICS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Rojowski Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DARA ROJOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOUTHERN GRAPHICS INC., d/b/a SGS & CO, Case No. 3:25-cv-00657-DJH (W.D. Ky., Oct. 9, 2025) is a class action against SGS for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former customers' or employees' sensitive information and protected health information, including medical information. According to its website, SGS & Co. is "a unique group of experts, thinkers and innovators who partner with the world's most ambitious brands at critical inflection points to see around corners, cut through the noise and provide simple, elegant solutions to solve complex brand problems." The Plaintiff and Class Members are individuals who were required to indirectly and/or directly provide Defendant with their Private Information. Because of this, SGS & Co. has a duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the Private Information that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures, says the suit. The Defendant is a commercial printing and graphic design company that provides printing, packaging, and related visual communication services to businesses and organizations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William H. Mapes, Esq. ALEX DAVIS LAW PSC 445 Baxter Ave. Ste 275 Louisville, KY 40204 Telephone: (502) 882-6000 Facsimile: (502) 587-2007 E-mail: will@acdavislaw.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com rob@lcllp.com SPIGEN INC: Faces Cole Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- HARON COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Spigen, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12097 (N.D. Ill., October 3, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.spigen.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On July 1, 2025, the Plaintiff began searching Google for an online store offering phone cases and came across the Defendant's website. However, as he tried to navigate the website and complete his purchase, he encountered accessibility barriers that significantly hindered his ability to proceed. Specifically, the 'Skip to content' link was not implemented, forcing him to navigate through all the repetitive menu items before reaching the main content, which made it harder for him to access information quickly and efficiently. Additionally, many interactive elements were unlabeled, making it difficult to understand their purpose, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Spigen, Inc'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. Spigen, Inc. operates the website that offers a variety of protective phone cases and accessories, screen protectors, chargers, bags, as well as car accessories.[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 STARK COUNTY, IL: Buckley Seeks Class Settlement Initial Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jacob Buckley, Ashley Neiggermann, and Jeff Martin, on behalf of themselves and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, v. Stark County Ambulance Services, Inc., Team Triage, Inc., and James Roesner, Case No. 1:25-cv-01141-JEH-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action and collective action settlement and for certification of claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23 for settlement. The Plaintiffs request the Court enter an order, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 2 to this motion, and (1) grant preliminary approval of the proposed Class Action Settlement; (2) certify the Class and Collective for settlement purposes; (3) approve the proposed Notice and Opt-in form (Exhibit B and C to the Settlement Agreement and Exhibit 3 and 4 attached to this motion); (4) set a hearing date for Final Approval of Settlement. There is no compelling reason to adjudicate nearly 143 identical lawsuits in separate actions. Because of the uniformity of the factual and legal claims of the Class members, it would be needlessly repetitive if the Class members were forced to prosecute their claims individually. A class action in the case at bar meets the superiority test of Rule 23(b)(3) because the difficulties and expense of prosecuting this type of litigation would be counterproductive for both Parties. With multiple claims, Defendant’s legal expenses (owed to attorneys for both sides) could be greater than the overall damages at stake in the class action, the Plaintiffs contends. On April 9, 2025, the Named Plaintiffs filed the Class and Collective Complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standard Act and Illinois Minimum Wage Law on a collective and class basis and an individual claim for Buckley under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collections Act. The Defendants have agreed to pay the Gross Settlement Amount of $225,000 to settle the claims. Counsel requests one-third of the settlement fund as an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of $415.58 in costs, which will come out of the $225,000 settlement payment. Proposed Class and Collective Definition The "Class Members" are defined as: "persons employed as hourly non-exempt employees by the Defendants between 4/9/2022 and 4/9/2025, who are identified in the payroll data produced by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs' Counsel and who are identified on Exhibit A to this Agreement." "Collective Members" are defined identically with the addition that a Collective Member must return a Claim Form and names several who have already submitted consents to join. The Class and Collective is ascertainable, and it consists of those persons who are identified on Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement. Stark is an emergency care provider. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jTnwwC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Kunze, Esq. Martin Stainthorp, Esq. WORKPLACE LAW PARTNERS P.C. 155 N. Michigan, Suite 719 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312)861-1800 E-mail: kunze@fishlawfirm.com mstainthorp@fishlawfirm.com - and - Quinton Osborne, Esq. OSBORNE EMPLOYMENT LAW LLC 799 Roosevelt Road, Suite 3-201 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Telephone: (331) 702-1538 Facsimile: (331) 465-0450 E-mail: Quinton@OsborneEmploymentLaw.com STATION FILM INC: Yearwood Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ricardo A. Yearwood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STATION FILM, INC, a California Corporation; STEPHEN ORENT, an individual, GEOFFREY OLLWERTHER, an individual; CAROLINE GIBNEY, an individual, and DOE 1 through and including DOE 10, Case No. 25STCV23294 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Oct. 10, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-09745. The Plaintiff's First Claim alleges that Defendants failed to pay final wages owed to Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiff contends "Plaintiff and class members have as of the date of filing of this Complaint not been fully compensated for work performed for the Defendants." The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Scott J. Witlin, Esq. Michael P. Witczak, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 284-3880 Facsimile: (310) 284-3894 Email: scott.witlin@btlaw.com michael.witczak@btlaw.com SUPERIOR VISION: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Ireland Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES IRELAND, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SUPERIOR VISION SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03344-JRR (D. Md., Oct. 9, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and Protected Health Information about its current and former clients and their employees. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach, the suit contends. On July 9, 2025, an employee of Defendant became the victim of a phishing attack through which an unauthorized actor gained access to Defendant's systems. The Defendant did not discover the Data Breach until two days later on July 11, 2025, at which point the threat actor had already "downloaded emails from the email account of the affected employee that contained customer personal information." The cybersecurity incident compromised the Private Information of 25,341 of Defendant’s current and former clients and their employees, including but not limited to their "full name, physical address, phone number, email address, date of birth, gender, Social Security number, vision coverage election information, and employment information related to enrollment." Superior Vision is a subsidiary of Versant Health that offers vision plans and vision care benefits for employer groups and individuals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary E. Howerton, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 223 Duke of Gloucester Street Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: (410) 269-6620 Facsimile: (410) 269-1235 E-mail: zhowerton@milberg.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com TITAN SECURITY: Anderson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Sequoia Anderson, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. TITAN SECURITY SERVICES, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, Case No. 1:25-cv-12395 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 10, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"). Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was not earning a consistent and properly calculated overtime wage that included Bonus Pay and other non-discretionary remuneration in the regular rate for proper overtime calculation. However, Defendant failed to incorporate Bonus Pay and other non-discretionary remuneration into its hourly employees' regular hourly rate calculation for overtime rates, resulting in prima facie violations of the FLSA. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week, and were paid some overtime for those hours, but at a rate that did not include Defendant's Bonus Pay and other non-discretionary remuneration for overtime rates as required by the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Chicago, Illinois and was employed by Defendant from August 2022 through April 21, 2025. The Defendant provides security services for commercial, industrial, government, and residential clients throughout multiple states located within United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Turner, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: mturner@sommerspc.com TNBN5 INC: Brooks Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Brooks, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. TNBN5, Inc. d/b/a Advanced Auto Repair; and Tommy Nickelson, individually, Case No. 4:25-cv-01110 (E.D. Tex., Oct. 10, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and all other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and employees like the Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek during their employment with Defendants, but Defendants failed to compensate them at one-and-one half times the regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in each workweek. Instead of paying overtime, as required by the FLSA, Defendants paid Plaintiff and employees like Plaintiff the same for all hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants. The Defendants own and operate an auto maintenance and repair shop known as Advanced Auto Repair.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Phone: 817-479-9229 Email: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com TOMMY BAHAMA GROUP: Haley Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Valerie Haley, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. TOMMY BAHAMA GROUP, INC., Case No. 25-2-26334-7 SEA was removed from the Superior Court for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Oct. 10, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01969. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class that comprises the following: "All Washington citizens holding an email address to which Defendant sent or caused to be sent any email. The Plaintiff also "reserves the right to amend the Class definition as discovery reveals additional emails containing false or misleading information in the subject line that Defendant sent or caused to be sent during the Class Period to email addresses held by Washington residents."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com athomas@cohenandmalad.com - and - Gerard J. Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Tackeff, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: 615-254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com mtackeff@stranchlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Lauren B. Rainwater, Esq. Rachel Herd, Esq. Emily Parsons, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Phone: 206-622-3150 Email: laurenrainwater@dwt.com rachelherd@dwt.com emilyparsons@dwt.com TOP GUN CRE INC: Bellon Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Top Gun CRE, Inc. The case is styled as Eugene Bellon, Catherine Bellon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Top Gun CRE, Inc., Doe Employees 1-10, Case No. 3:25-cv-02693-BJC-DDL (S.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Top Gun CRE -- https://www.topguncre.com/ -- provides services that include apartment brokerage, advisory, financing, capital market, exchange services, and evaluation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Phone: (513) 381-2333 Fax: (513) 766-9011 Email: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com - and - Matthew Ryan Wilson, Esq. MEYER WILSON CO., LPA 1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 224-6000 Fax: (614) 224-6066 Email: mwilson@meyerwilson.com TOUCH THEM: Freeman Sues Over Illegal Background Screening Reports ------------------------------------------------------------------ SIR FABIAN FREEMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOUCH THEM ALL INC., d/b/a FIRST CHECK APPLICANT SCREENING, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01080-O (N.D. Tex., October 2, 2025) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all similarly situated consumers for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant produces background screening reports to third-party entities for employment purposes for a fee. The information produced in reports by the Defendant to third parties for employment purposes constitute "Consumer Reports" as that term is defined in the FCRA. The Consumer Reports produced by Defendant concerning Plaintiff and other Putative Class members contained medical information. The complaint asserts that the Defendant did not have express written consent from Plaintiff and other Putative Class members to release medical or personal health information to third party entities. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself, and all other Putative Class members, seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other available relief as allowed by law. The Plaintiff applied for employment with the City of Bedford for a position in the City's human resource department in or about October of 2023. Them All Inc., d/b/a First Check Applicant Screening is a consumer reporting agency doing business as a domestic corporation in the state of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger L. Mandel, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROGER L. MANDEL 3416 Pelham Rd. Fort Worth, TX 76116 Telephone: (214) 762-1036 E-mail: rogerlmandel@gmail.com - and - Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: jwatkins@sirillp.com TRADITIONAL MEDICINALS: Desrys Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling ------------------------------------------------------------------- PORSCHE DESRYS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRADITIONAL MEDICINALS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-07898 (N.D. Cal., September 16, 2025) seeks to challenge the sale of Defendant's unlawful herbal supplement products. According to the complaint, the Defendant's herbal supplements claim to support, inter alia, joints, digestion, heart health, and even sleep. The Food and Drug Administration has implemented precautions to warn consumers about supplements with structure function claims. However, the Defendant failed also include the disclaimer on the same front panel of the products, as required by the FDA. As such, Defendant has violated the FDA's regulations. As a result of Defendant's unlawful labeling of the products, Plaintiff and members of the class paid a price premium for the herbal supplement products, says the suit. Headquartered in Rohnert Park, CA, Traditional Medicinals, Inc. manufactures and sells herbal supplement products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq. Benjamin Heikali, Esq. Joshua Nassir, Esq. Katherine Phillips, Esq. TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP 3130 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 555 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Telephone: (310) 751-5948 E-mail: rglezakos@treehouselaw.com bheikali@treehouselaw.com jnassir@treehouselaw.com kphillips@treehouselaw.com TRANSUNION LLC: Faces Johnson Suit Over Private Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- STACI JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSUNION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11188 (N.D. Ill., September 16, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information. According to the complaint, the PII breached appears to have included names, Social Security numbers, billing addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and dates of birth. Despite learning of the data breach on or around July 28, 2025, the Defendant did not send notice to impacted individuals until August 26, 2025. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to remedy the harms caused by the data breach and asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and for injunctive/declaratory relief. Headquartered in Chicago, IL, TransUnion, LLC operates as a consumer credit reporting agency. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Schwartz, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 110 N Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (773) 257-0255 E-mail: rschwartz@bergermontague.com - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 E-mail: emdrake@bergermontague.com - and - Mark B. DeSanto, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: mdesanto@bergermontague.com TUFT & NEEDLE: Class Cert Hearing in Chebul Continued to Nov. 7 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMILY CHEBUL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TUFT & NEEDLE, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02707-JLS-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine Staton entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue hearing. The Court grants the stipulation and continues the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification to Nov. 7, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. All other deadlines to remain the same. Tuft & Needle is an American bed-in-a-box company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EX7BQX at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Plaintiffs Win Renewed Bid for Class Cert ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LD, ET AL., v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, ET AL., Case No. 4:20-cv-02254-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. The Court sets a case management conference for Nov. 10, 2025. The Parties shall meet and confer on a schedule for the balance of the action and file a statement with respect to scheduling no later than seven days prior to the conference. The Court finds the plaintiffs have satisfied their burden as to numerosity and thus as to all four of 23(a)'s prerequisites. The Court therefore finds the plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3). Before the Court is plaintiffs' third, and more narrowed, motion for class certification, seeking to represent a class of individuals whose claims for out-of-network ("OON") intensive outpatient program ("IOP") services they allege were inappropriately priced by defendants in violation of both the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). United provides management services on a contract and fee basis. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F7j9qM at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Hall Class Action Tossed w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA HALL, et al., v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00982-JPW-EW (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer P. Wilson entered an order that: 1. Claims raised by Plaintiffs Hall, Heilner, Quinones, Dantzler Harris, Cunagin, and Vandevander are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914. 2. The Plaintiff Hoffman's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 3. The Plaintiff Hoffman shall pay the full filing fee of $350.00, based on the financial information provided in the application to proceed in forma pauperis. The full filing fee shall be paid regardless of the outcome of the litigation. 4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2), the Superintendent/Warden, or other appropriate official at Plaintiff Hoffman's place of confinement is directed to deduct an initial partial filing fee of 20% of the greater of: (A) the average monthly deposits in the inmate's prison account for the past six months, or (B) the average monthly balance in the inmate’s prison account for the past six months. 5. The initial partial filing fee shall be forwarded to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, P.O. Box 1148, Scranton, Pennsylvania, 18501-1148, to be credited to the above- captioned docket number. In each succeeding month, when the amount in the Plaintiff's inmate prison account exceeds $10.00, the Superintendent / Warden, or other proper official, shall forward payments to the Clerk of Court equaling 20% of the preceding month’s income credited to Plaintiff Hoffman’s prison account until the $350.00 fee is paid. Each payment shall reference the above-captioned docket number. 6. The Clerk of Court shall send a copy of this Order to the Superintendent/Warden of the institution wherein Plaintiff Hoffman is presently confined. 7. Plaintiff Rivera's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 8. The Plaintiff Rivera shall pay the full filing fee of $350.00, based on the financial information provided in the application to proceed in forma pauperis. The full filing fee shall be paid regardless of the outcome of the litigation. 9. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(b)(1) and (2), the Superintendent/Warden, or other appropriate official at Plaintiff Rivera's place of confinement is directed to deduct an initial partial filing fee of 20% of the greater of: (A) the average monthly deposits in the inmate's prison account for the past six months, or (B) the average monthly balance in the inmate's prison account for the past six months. 10. The complaint is deemed filed. 11. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 12. The Plaintiffs request for appointment of counsel and class certification is denied. 13. The Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint by Nov. 3, 2025. If no amended complaint is filed, the court will close the case. Department of Justice oversees the domestic enforcement of federal laws and the administration of justice. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=00FWcN at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Molina Seeks to Certify Warrantless Arrests Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ESCOBAR MOLINA, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03417-BAH (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for certification of Warrantless Arrests Class. The Court should grant the motion for class certification, appoint Plaintiffs Escobar Molina, B.S.R., N.S., and R.S.M. as class representatives for the Warrantless Arrest Class, and appoint the undersigned as class counsel, Molina contends. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following proposed class: Warrantless Arrests Class: "All persons who, since Aug. 11, 2025, have been or will be arrested in this District for alleged immigration violations without a warrant and without a pre-arrest, individualized assessment of probable cause that the person is in the United States unlawfully and that the person poses a flight risk." The Plaintiffs' proposed class satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit as a putative class action to challenge the Defendants' policy and practice of making warrantless immigration arrests without probable cause in Washington, D.C. In violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") and the Department of Homeland Security's ("DHS") own regulations. The Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Defendants' policy and practice of conducting warrantless arrests without probable cause is unlawful, injunctive relief to prohibit further violations of Plaintiffs' and putative class members' rights and to require Defendants to expunge records and information relating to or deriving from their unlawful arrests, and vacatur of the unlawful policy. DHS is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ft2BC2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jehan A. Patterson, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-6000 E-mail: jpatterson@cov.com UNITED STATES: Molina Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ESCOBAR MOLINA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03417-BAH (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order provisionally certifying Plaintiffs' proposed class, granting the requested preliminary injunction as to Plaintiffs and the proposed class, and/or stay Defendants' policy and practice of making warrantless immigration arrests without the required probable cause findings. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 and 65, and 5 U.S.C. section 705, Plaintiffs José Escobar Molina, B.S.R., N.S., R.S.M., and CASA, Inc., move for provisional class certification and for a preliminary injunction and/or to stay agency action on behalf of themselves and similarly situated individuals who have been or will be subjected to Defendants’ policy and practice of making warrantless immigration arrests without an individualized determination of probable cause as required by the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Plaintiff contends that the Court should provisionally certify the following class to grant preliminary injunctive relief: Warrantless Arrest Class: "All persons who, since Aug. 11, 2025, have been or will be arrested in this District for alleged immigration violations without a warrant and without a pre-arrest, individualized assessment of probable cause that the person is in the United States unlawfully and that the person poses a flight risk." Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4W5PD7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adina Appelbaum, Esq. Ian Austin Rose, Esq. Samantha Hsieh, Esq. AMICA CENTER FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS 1025 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 701 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 331-3320 E-mail: adina@amicacenter.org austin.rose@amicacenter.org sam@amicacenter.org - and - Aditi Shah, Esq. Scott Michelman, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 529 14th Street NW, Suite 722 Washington, DC 20045 Telephone: (202) 457-0800 E-mail: ashah@acludc.org smichelman@acludc.org - and - Kathryn Huddleston, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 915 15th Street NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (212) 549-2500 E-mail: khuddleston@aclu.org - and - Sirine Shebaya, Esq. Yulie Landan, Esq. Bridget Pranzatelli, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT 1763 Columbia Road NW, Suite 175 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (213) 430-5521 E-mail: sirine@niplg.org yulie@nipnlg.org bridget@nipnlg.org - and - Jehan A. Patterson, Esq. Chris Kimmel, Esq. Alexandra Widas, Esq. Hassan Ahmad, Esq. Sean Berman, Esq. Austin Riddick, Esq. Eva H. Lilienfeld, Esq. Graham Glusman, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-6000 E-mail: jpatterson@cov.com ckimmel@cov.com awidas@cov.com hahmad@cov.com sberman@cov.com ariddick@cov.com elilienfeld@cov.com gglusman@cov.com - and - Madeleine Gates, Esq. WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS 700 14th Street NW, #400 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 319-1000 E-mail: madeleine_gates@washlaw.org - and - Ama Frimpong, Esq. CASA, INC. 8151 15th Avenue Hyattsville, MD 20783 Telephone: (240) 485-8844 E-mail: afrimpong@wearecasa.org UNITED STATES: Provisional Class Cert. Bid in Molina Due Oct. 29 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESCOBAR MOLINA et al v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03417 (D.D.C., Filed Sept. 25, 2025), the Hon. Judge Beryl A. Howell entered a scheduling order: The Defendants shall file any combined response to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, to Stay Agency Action, and for Provisional Class Certification and Motion for Class Certification by Oct. 29, 2025. The Plaintiffs shall file any reply in support of those motions by Oct. 29, 2025. Any necessary hearing will be scheduled following consideration of the briefing submitted by the parties. The suit alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security.[CC] UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Faces Suit Over Privacy Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JEFF ENGEL, ERIN LAVIGNA, TIMOTHY CIRAOLO, LAUREN HEDGPETH, SEAN HLAVAC, SANDRA PHILLIPS, JENNIFER LAWRENCE, KIM KENNEDY, HALLIE JOHNSON, and HALLIE JACOBS, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-02429-JES-VET (S.D. Cal., September 16, 2025) seeks to address Defendants' practice of enabling unauthorized third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc., Google LLC, and Fullstory, Inc., to intercept Plaintiff's and Class Members' confidential, health-related communications with their medical provider, the University of California, San Diego Health. The Defendants are or were employees of UCSD Health, and were allegedly responsible, in various forms and capacities, for implementing, embedding, or installing analytics and tracking tools on the Website, at the direction of their employer, UCSD Health. The Plaintiff and other Class Members who used the website believed they were communicating only with their trusted health care provider. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class Members, however, the website's source code contained analytics and tracking software, which tracked and transmitted Plaintiff's and Class Members' online activity and communications to third parties via a tracking code. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy the harms of Defendant's conduct and brings a cause of action for Defendants' violation of the Federal Wiretap Act and invasion of privacy under California's constitution. UC San Diego Health is an academic health system in San Diego, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (914) 874-0708 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Ines Diaz Villafana, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com idiaz@bursor.com - and - Scott R. Drury, Esq. DRURY LEGAL, LLC 6 Carriage Lane Highwood, IL 60040 Telephone: (312) 358-8225 E-mail: scott@drurylegal.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Spencer Campbell, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 E. Court St., Suite. 530 Cincinnati, OH 4502 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: scampbell@msdlegal.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com - and - Caleb Marker, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 Facsimile: (877) 500-8781 E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Winston Hudson, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 255-8569 E-mail: chris@jefirm.com winston@jefirm.com - and - Rachel K. Tack, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: rachel.tack@zimmreed.com UNIVERSITY OF OREGON: Seeks More Time to Complete Opposition ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY SCHROEDER, et al. v. UNIVERSITY OF OREGON, Case No. 6:23-cv-01806-MC (D. Or.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting a 75-day extension of time to complete its opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion. If granted, the briefing schedule would be as follows: -- University's Opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion to be filed by Jan. 5, 2026. -- The Plaintiffs Reply to be filed by March 5, 2026. The requested extension of time will allow this Court to consider the class certification question on a more complete record and is required for three principle reasons. First, the University needs to complete the depositions of Plaintiffs' nine proposed class representatives—all of whom were only recently disclosed—to determine whether they are typical and adequate. Second, the Plaintiffs' Motion relies heavily on several previously undisclosed expert reports which the University needs additional time to assess and rebut. The Plaintiffs include KENDALL CLARK, HALLI FIELDS, NATASHA GEORGE, JOSIE GRIFFITHS, JADE BERNAL, DAHLIA MCALLISTER, PRESLEY MCCASKILL, ABIGAIL PLEVIN, VALERIE PETERSON, ELLA TYUS, SIULOLOVAO FOLAU, ALEX LAITA, BATIA ROTSHTEIN, ZOE ALMANZA, BEATRICE WETTON, MIA LOPEZ, DELANEY HOPEN, CARLY WALLACE, SAVANNAH SIEGRIST, ANASTASIA LIMA, MADELYN LAFOLLETTE, ALEXANDRA HADEN, JOSIE COLE, ALAINA THOMAS, VIVIAN DONOVAN, ELISE HAVERLAND, RIVER RIBEIRO, SOPHIA SCHMITZ, SYDNEY WEDDLE, CLAIRE DALEY and ANNA MARIA KNIGHT, Individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, University of Oregon is a public research university in Eugene, Oregon. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mVgR2H at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Stephen F. English, Esq. Sarah J. Crooks, Esq. Adrianna Simonelli, Esq. Colin Lubelczyk, Esq. Thomas J. Tobin, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1120 NW Couch Street, Tenth Floor Portland, OR 97209-4128 Telephone: (503) 727-2000 E-mail: SEnglish@perkinscoie.com SCrooks@perkinscoie.com ASimonelli@perkinscoie.com CLubelczyk@perkinscoie.com TTobin@perkinscoie.com Dougpark@uoregon.edu - and - Jeslyn Everitt, Esq. UNIVERSITY OF OREGON OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 6251 University of Oregon Eugene OR 97403 Telephone: (541) 346-6110 E-mail: Jeveritt@uoregon.edu VERADIGM INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cabonilas Says ---------------------------------------------------------- LISA CABONILAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERADIGM INC.; and VERADIGM LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-12502 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 13, 2025) is a class action against Veradigm for its failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of over 70,000 people, including highly sensitive personal information. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Data Breach was a direct result of Veradigm's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Sensitive Information. If Veradigm's customers had known of Veradigm's lax security practices with respect to their Sensitive Information, they would not have used Veradigm for their healthcare services given the risks posed by Veradigm's lax security practices and, as a result, the customers' patients—including Plaintiff and Class Members—would not have had their Sensitive Information exposed. Armed with the Sensitive Information accessed in the Data Breach, data thieves can commit a variety of crimes including, e.g., opening new financial accounts in Class Members' names, taking out loans in Class Members' names, using Class Members' information to obtain government benefits, filing fraudulent tax returns using Class Members' information, filing false medical claims using Class Members' information, obtaining driver's licenses in Class Members' names but with another person's photograph, and giving false information to police during an arrest, alleges the suit. Veradigm Inc. operates as an integrated data systems and services company that combines data-driven clinical insights with actionable tools to help healthcare stakeholders. The Company focuses on healthcare providers providing point-of-care clinical software, practice management solutions, and patient outreach platforms. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony F. Fata, Esq. Cormac H. Broeg, Esq. KIRBY McINERNEY LLP 211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 550 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 767-5180 Email: afata@kmllp.com cbroeg@kmllp.com - and - Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq. Casey C. DeReus, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 308-5858 Facsimile: (212) 486-0462 Email: fortunato@bespc.com dereus@bespc.com WEST SHORE HOME: Rhodes Sues Over Failure to Compensate Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rochelle Rhodes, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WEST SHORE HOME, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01906-KMN (M.D. Pa., Oct. 10, 2025), is brought arising out of Defendant's systemic failure to compensate its employees for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked at the appropriate overtime rate, in willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), The North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("North Carolina Wage Act"); and common law. Throughout the relevant period, Defendant maintained a corporate policy and practice of failing to compensate its Representatives for all pre-, mid- and post-shift off-the-clock work. The Representatives routinely worked 40 hours or more per week before accounting for their off-the-clock work. When the off-the-clock work is included, the Representatives, even those Representatives who were scheduled and paid for only 40 hours per week, worked over 40 hours per week without the required overtime premium for all time worked over 40 hours. The Defendant is liable for its failure to pay its Representatives for all work performed, and at the appropriate overtime rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a sales representative from September 2022 through September 2023 in Defendant's Raleigh, North Carolina office. The Defendant is a company that provides home renovation and remodeling services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: gary@lcllp.com jamisen@lcllp.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: jthompson@sommerspc.com WONWON GROUP: Parties Must Propose Amended Discovery Schedule ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Harrelson v. Wonwon Group Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-02147 (N.D. Ga., Filed May 11, 2023), the Hon. Judge Victoria M. Calvert entered an order as follows: The Report should propose an amended discovery schedule, include a briefing schedule for motions related to class certification, and address settlement discussions. The parties may also bring any other outstanding issues to the Court's attention through the report. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) involving minimum wage or overtime compensation. Wonwon is in the Chinese restaurant industry.[CC] WPP PLC: Faces Marty Class Suit Over Common Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------ JACK MARTY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WPP PLC, MARK READ, JOANNE WILSON, and BRIAN D. LESSER, Case No. 1:25-cv-08365 (Oct. 9, 2025, S.D.N.Y.) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired WPP common stock between Feb. 27, 2025, to July 8, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. The Defendants provided investors with material information concerning WPP's expected revenue for the fiscal year 2025. The Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in the Company's continued efforts to revitalize and simplify its media division to obtain new wins and retain clientele, repeated claims that the "ramp-up of new wins" and ongoing sales to existing clients would offset lost clientele, and a continued emphasis on the Company's self-proclaimed "cautious" guidance that purportedly accounted for "broad macro uncertainty." The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of WPP's media arm; notably, that it was not truly equipped to handle the ongoing macroeconomic challenges while competing effectively and had instead begun to lose significant market share to its competitors. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase WPP's securities at artificially inflated prices. On July 9, 2025, WPP published a trading update for the first half of 2025, alerting investors that the company had allegedly "seen a deterioration in performance as Q2 has progressed." The Company attributed its misfortune to both "continued macro uncertainty weighing on client spend and weaker net new business than originally anticipated," at least in part due to "some distraction to the business" as a result of the continued restructuring of WPP Media a.k.a. GroupM. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to WPP's revelation. The price of WPP's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $35.82 per share on July 8, 2025, WPP's stock price fell to $29.34 per share on July 9, 2025, a decline of about 18.1% in the span of just a single day, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated investors, to recover losses sustained in connection with Defendants' fraud. The Plaintiff purchased WPP common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the Defendants' fraud. Plaintiff's certification evidencing his transaction(s) in WPP is attached hereto. WPP is a global communications company that offers advertising, media management, consultancy, public relations, as well as branding and identity services worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com Asbestos Litigation ********* 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 ***