251027.mbx

251027.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, October 27, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 214 Headlines 119 CHRISTOPHER: General Pretrial Management Entered in Sutton 3M COMPANY: Aguero Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama A-S MEDICATION: Parties Must Comply M.D. Fla.'s Local Rules ACE CLEARWATER ENTERPRISES: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AGA SERVICE: Herssein Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid AKUMIN OPERATING: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $1.5MM ALASKA AIRLINES: Class Cert Opposition Due Jan. 14, 2026 AMAZON PRIME: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 8, 2026 AMAZON.COM INC: FTC Secures $2.5B Settlement in Subscription Suit AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks Leave to File Reconsideration Bid AMERICA PAC: Bids for Class Certification Due Jan. 8, 2026 ANGI INC: Rhodes Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime Wages APPFOLIO INC: Miller Files Suit in C.D. California ARCONIC INC: Settlement Fairness Hearing Scheduled for Feb. 10 ATTAINX INC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Durand Says BANK OF AMERICA: Aldana Wins Class Certification Bid BEECHNUT SQUARE: Garcia Sues Over Unlawful Physical Barriers BELLA SLOAN: Clarke Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls BMX HOLDINGS: Doane Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls BRAG HOUSE: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to House of Doge BRIGHTSTAR GLOBAL: Rios Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info COUNTRY LIFE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hampton Says D & D SEAFOOD: Paradise Tails Sues Over Price-Fixing Scheme DORAI HOME INC: Garcia Suit Removed to S.D. California EJEC VENTURES: Echols Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website EPISOURCE LLC: Dunlap Suit Transferred to C.D. California EXETER FINANCE: Bodnar Suit Transferred to S.D. Mississippi EZAKI GLICO: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Moran Alleges FIFTH KINGDOM LLC: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FLEXTAIL TECHNOLOGY: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FLUOR FEDERAL: Herzog Balks at Anti-Poaching, Wage-Fixing Policies FPI MANAGEMENT: Jones Files Suit Over Calif. Labor Code Violation GARY MUSSELWHITE: McCoy Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class GAYLORD FARM: Faces Smith Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Brake Assemblies GEO MANAGEMENT: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Lopez Says GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE: Fails to Protect Private Info, Byron Says GWG HOLDINGS: $50.95MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 13 HP INC: $39MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 16 IM PRO MAKEUP: Faces Towns Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces Class Action Suit Over "Noxious Odors" LHO SAN DIEGO: Frye Sues Over Hotel's Gender-Based Pricing Scheme LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Bid for Class Settlement Prelim Approval Tossed LORETTO HEALTH: Class Cert Filing in Aderohunmu Due Jan. 16, 2026 MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Oral Argument in Lopez Class Cert Bid MARYLAND: Refiling of Bid for Class Cert Due Jan. 12, 2026 MCKESSON CORP: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 5 MDL 3035: Jackson Wins Class Certification Bid MDL 3143: Bid to Compel Depositions of Former Plaintiffs Tossed META PLATFORMS: OPERS Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. META PLATFORMS: Plaintiff Seeks to File Class Exhibit Under Seal META PLATFORMS: Plaintiff Seeks to File Docs Under Seal METRO ONE: Parties Must Supplement Joint Status Report, Court Says METROPOLITAN LIFE: Fact Discovery in Blackoak Due Feb. 26, 2027 MEXICO MARKET: Faces Pardo Suit Over ADA Violation MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Hindlemann Sues Over Stock Price Drop MONSANTO COMPANY: Newton Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Pitts Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Poffenberger Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Ramiro Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Renninger Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Sampson Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Vera Suit Transferred to N.D. California MULTI-CRAFT CONTRACTORS: Class Cert Discovery Due Feb. 27, 2026 NAILS CLUB: Faces Perez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. NATUROPATHICA HOLISTIC: Seeks to Stay Discovery & Class Cert NEOGEN CORPORATION: Faces Shareholder Suit over 3M Business Sale NESTLE HEALTH: "Nutritional Drink" Labels Deceptive, Testori Says NESTLE HEALTH: Testori Balks at Deceptive Nutritional Drinks NEW YORK COMMUNITY: Class Settlement in Sapozhnikov Gets Final Nod NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE: Toolan Sues Over Unlawful Insurance Cost NEW YORK: Bid for More Time to File Class Response OK'd NEWELL BRANDS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Oster Ovens NIKOLA CORPORATION: Faces Shareholder Suit over SEC Disclosures NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Iwan Sues Over Defective Vehicles O'REILLY AUTO: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Jan. 9, 2026 ONEAZ CREDIT: Parties in Carranza Seek to Stay Class Cert Deadlines OPENAI INC: Bid to Compel Plaintiffs' Depositions in Alter Tossed OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Claims in LCG Class Suit OPW FUELING: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response in Solis PAMELA BONDI: Court Stays Graham Class Suit PATH: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PILLOW COLLECTION: Ford Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind PREMIER CONNECTIONS: Burke Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. PROFESSIONAL FINANCE: Class Settlement in Rodriguez Gets Final Nod QUINCY BIOSCIENCE HOLDING: Hudis Files Suit in E.D. California QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Marketing RECKITT BENCKISER: Mislabels Brain Health Supplements, Suit Says RED DRESS BOUTIQUE: Scott Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California RETINA GROUP: Freedman Alleges Failure to Secure Personal Info REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Conditional Cert Bid Filing Due March 11, 2026 RUGSUSA LLC: Filing for Class Cert. in Hong Suit Due Feb. 3, 2026 SAMPSON BLADEN: Gbete Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action SCHWEBEL BAKING: Parties Seek OK of Court Supervised Notice SCOUT ENERGY: Hawkins Seeks to Modify Class Certification Schedule SECURITAS SECURITY: Bid for Class Cert in Ulloa Due May 15, 2026 SETERUS INC: Filing for Class Certification in Whitt Due Dec. 2 SIRIUSXM HOLDINGS: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss False Ads' Suit SKLAR LAW: Class Cert Bid Filing in Green Suit Due Nov. 4 SOUTHEASTERN GROCERS: White Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Bronstin Files Suit Over TCPA Violation SPECIALIZED LOAN: Seeks to Clarify Conditional Cert Order SPRINTFONE INC: Bland Bid to Commence Discovery OK'd STATE FARM: 6th Cir. Split in Affirming Class Status of Clippinger STUBHUB HOLDINGS: Faces Class Lawsuit Over FanProtect Guarantee STUDIOH HOSPITALITY: Faces Lee Suit Over Servers' Unpaid Wages SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: Klein Sues Over Defective Ovens T-MOBILE USA: Diaz Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. TARGET CORP: Seeks to Stay Davis Pending "Montgomery" Outcome TEKSYSTEMS INC: Bid to Remand Unfair Competition Claim OK'd TERA JACKSON-DAVIS: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Response TLC HOUSE: Faces Sparks Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages TOMOCREDIT INC: Faces Ramos Suit Over Unauthorized Text Messages TRADER JOE'S: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Probiotic Supplement TRANSDEV SERVICES: Lovejoy Wins Class Cert Bid TRUE FINANCE: Kelly Sues Over Predatory Lending Practices TUNGRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Alshubrumi Class Suit TYLER PERRY: Standing Order Entered in Dixon Class Action UNDER ARMOUR: Filing for Class Cert Bid Modified to March 31, 2026 UNIQUE ON THE GO: Perez Class Suit Removed to D. Mass. UNITED GUARD: Class Cert Hearing in Vyalkov Set for Nov. 12 UNITED GUARD: Vyalkov Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action UNITED STATES: LWV Seeks Certification of Prelim Relief Subclass UNIVERSAL LENDERS: Bakale Files Suit in Ill. Cir. Ct. US MED: Parties in Leedy Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines VETERANS ALLIANCE: Bid to Deny Class Cert. in Mitchell Tossed VOLT MANAGEMENT: Bid to Continue Class Cert Discovery Tossed WA CUSHION: Bermudez Suit Seeks to Certify Classes WALMART INC: Radford Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Flowers Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective WELLSTAR HEALTH: Class Certification Bid Filing Due July 24, 2026 WESTGATE VACATION: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ********* 119 CHRISTOPHER: General Pretrial Management Entered in Sutton -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STASON SUTTON, v. 119 CHRISTOPHER LLC et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-08019-DEH-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management: All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Parties and counsel are cautioned: 1. If and when a discovery schedule is issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. 2. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and § 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. 3. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. 4. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court p roceeding (including a telephonic court conference), or to extend a deadline, must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y7ywVv at no extra charge.[CC] 3M COMPANY: Aguero Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Molly Aguero, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1-CV-2025-903020.00 was removed from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Alabama on Oct. 14, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01753-SGC. The Plaintiffs seek to hold Tyco and certain other the Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and/or selling aqueous film forming foam ("AFFF") that the Plaintiffs allege caused them personal injuries. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' AFFF contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"), and that the use of AFFF exposed the Plaintiffs to these substances, which in turn caused them to develop certain diseases. The Plaintiffs also allege that these substances damaged their property.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory M. Taube, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 201 17th Street, NW, Suite 1700 Atlanta, GA 30363 Phone: (404) 322-6000 Fax: (404) 322-6050 Email: greg.taube@nelsonmullins.com A-S MEDICATION: Parties Must Comply M.D. Fla.'s Local Rules ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL SULLIVAN, v. A-S MEDICATION SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-01933-GAP-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Presnell entered an order directing the parties to read and comply with the Middle District of Florida's Local Rules. The Court makes an active effort to review each case to identify parties and interested corporations in which the assigned District Judge or Magistrate Judge may have an interest, and for other matters that might require consideration of recusal. Compliant with Local Rule 3.03, within 14 days from the day of this Order or, if a party joins this action subsequent to the entry of this Order, from the date of a party's first appearance, each party, pro se party, governmental party, intervenor, non-party movant, and Rule 69 garnishee is directed to file and serve a Disclosure Statement substantially in the form attached. No later than 14 days from the date of this Order, counsel and any pro se party shall comply with Local Rule 1.07(c) and shall file and serve a certification as to whether the instant action should be designated as a similar or successive case pursuant to Local Rule 1.07. The parties shall utilize the attached form titled Notice of Pendency of Other Actions. The parties are directed to consult Local Rule 3.02 to determine whether this action requires a case management conference and case management report (CMR), or if it falls under one of the exceptions listed in Local Rule 3.02(d). AS Medication is a provider of pharmaceutical solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=12QJBn at no extra charge.[CC] ACE CLEARWATER ENTERPRISES: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ace Clearwater Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Luis M. Martinez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Ace Clearwater Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 25STCV29773 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 10, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Ace Clearwater Enterprises, Inc. -- https://aceclearwater.com/ -- provides building complex formed and welded assemblies.[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 AGA SERVICE: Herssein Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as REUVEN T. HERSSEIN, on behalf of himself, the general public, and those similarly situated, v. AGA SERVICE COMPANY (d/b/a ALLIANZ GLOBAL ASSISTANCE), JEFFERSON INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 0:25-cv-60256-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for enlargement of time to file motion for class certification. The parties have been diligently working to move this matter forward, but the Plaintiff requires additional time to prepare its motion for class certification for filing, and seeks an extension until Oct. 31, 2025. Allianz operates as an international insurer. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WBS0Nq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maury L. Udell, Esq. BEIGHLEY, MYRICK, UDELL & ZEICHMAN PA 2601 S. Bayshore Drive, Ste. 770 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 349-3930 E-mail: mudell@bmulaw.com notice66@bmulaw.com AKUMIN OPERATING: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $1.5MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Alder of The HIPAA Journal reports that Akumin, a Florida-based provider of outpatient radiology and oncology services with locations in more than 20 U.S. states, has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit stemming from an October 2023 cybersecurity incident. Akumin identified suspicious network activity on October 11, 2023, and confirmed that a threat actor accessed its network on October 11, 2023, and used ransomware to encrypt files. The files potentially accessed and/or copied by the threat actor included patient and employee information such as names, contact information, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, passport numbers, medical record numbers, Medicare/Medicaid numbers, financial account information, health information, occupational health information, medical images, biometric information, billing and claims information, health insurance information, electronic signatures and other sensitive data. The security incident was announced by Akumin on its website on October 12, 2023, and the data breach was reported to the HHS' Office for Civil Rights as involving the protected health information of 7,127 individuals. Notification letters were sent to those individuals on December 29, 2023, and around a year later, on December 23, 2024, notification letters were mailed to the further affected individuals. Several class action lawsuits were filed against Akumin over the data breach, which were consolidated into a single lawsuit -- Gina Letizio, et al. v. Akumin Operating Corp. -- in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Court in and for Broward County, Florida. The consolidated lawsuit asserted claims of negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. Akumin denies any wrongdoing and maintains there is no liability but chose to settle the lawsuit to avoid the litigation costs and expenses, distractions, burden, and disruption to its business operations associated with continuing with the litigation. The plaintiffs believe their claims are valid but agreed to settle the lawsuit for similar reasons. Under the terms of the settlement, Akumin has agreed to establish a $1.5 million settlement fund to cover attorneys' fees and expenses, settlement administration costs, and service awards for each of the named plaintiffs. After those costs have been paid, the remaining funds will be used to pay benefits to the class members. All class members are entitled to submit a claim for a cash payment to reimburse them for documented, unreimbursed losses due to the data breach up to a maximum of $2,500 per class member. In addition to the cash payment, class members may also claim one year of free medical data monitoring services. The deadline for objection to and exclusion from the settlement is November 30, 2025, and claims must be submitted by the same date. The settlement has received preliminary approval from the court, and the final approval hearing has been scheduled for December 15, 2025. Further information can be found on the settlement website, https://akumindataincidentsettlement.com/ [GN] ALASKA AIRLINES: Class Cert Opposition Due Jan. 14, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WESLEY MARECHEAU, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., an Alaska corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-03780-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order re class certification briefing: 1. The dates in the Court's second amended scheduling order will remain the same; and 2. The Opposition to the motion for class certification deadline shall be Jan. 14, 2026, and the reply deadline shall be Feb. 4, 2026. The Parties anticipate they will need additional time to prepare their opposition and reply, to provide sufficient time for any depositions if needed, and in light of the Thanksgiving holiday. The Plaintiff's counsel will also be unavailable, as indicated in their notice of unavailability, and unable to attend or defend any depositions, from Dec. 22, 2025 through Jan. 2, 2026. Alaska provides air transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q99JFk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Natalie Haritoonian, Esq. Arsine Grigoryan, Esq. Rose Sorial, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 E-mail: n.haritoonian@d.law a.grigoryan@d.law r.sorial@d.law The Defendants are represented by: Paul S. Cowie, Esq. Patricia M. Jeng, Esq. Melissa Hughes, Esq. Julia G. Remer, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com pjeng@sheppardmullin.com mhughes@sheppardmullin.com jremer@sheppardmullin.com AMAZON PRIME: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 8, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re Amazon Prime Video Litigation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00401-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo Martinez entered an order This matter is before the Court on the Parties' Stipulation regarding an amended schedule for discovery and class-certification briefing. The Parties have therefore agreed to a sixty-day extension of the current case schedule to allow for additional time as reflected in the dates below. The Parties have previously requested two short extensions as to these deadlines, and this additional modest extension would not affect any other deadlines as no schedule has been set beyond class certification. Event Date Close of Fact Discovery: Dec. 23, 2025 Close of Expert Discovery: Mar. 16, 2026 Close of Rebuttal Expert Apr. 27, 2026 Discovery: Deadline for Motion for June 8, 2026 Class Certification: Deadline for Amazon's July 27, 2026 Opposition to Class Certification Motion: Deadline for Plaintiffs' Aug. 17, 2026 Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Class Certification: Amazon is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QU0l8w at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq. Michael Robert Reese, Esq. George V. Granade, II, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, Suite 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643‐0500 E-mail: cramirez@reesellp.com mreese@reesellp.com ggranade@reesellp.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 303‐0552 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com - and - Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682‐5600 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com rsolomon@tousley.com The Defendant is represented by: Charles C. Sipos, Esq. Mallory Gitt Webster, Esq. Thomas J. Tobin, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: (206) 359-8000 Facsimile: (206) 359-9000 E-mail: CSipos@perkinscoie.com MWebster@perkinscoie.com TTobin@perkinscoie.com AMAZON.COM INC: FTC Secures $2.5B Settlement in Subscription Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Miller of FFESP reports that in September 2025, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a record-breaking $2.5 billion settlement against Amazon. The decision followed a lengthy investigation into Amazon's Prime subscription process, which allegedly used misleading designs that led users to enroll unintentionally and made cancellations unnecessarily complicated. From the total settlement, $1.5 billion will go to customer refunds, while $1 billion serves as a civil penalty. The FTC expects approximately 35 million U.S. Prime members to be eligible for compensation. The settlement also forces Amazon to simplify its enrollment and cancellation systems, making them transparent and compliant with consumer protection laws. Why was the Settlement Necessary? The FTC alleged that Amazon used "dark patterns" design tactics that nudged consumers into subscribing to Prime without explicit consent. These tactics included preselected options, unclear pricing disclosures, and a confusing cancellation flow that required multiple steps. Amazon agreed to pay the settlement without admitting wrongdoing. However, it must now redesign its Prime interface to include clear "Decline Prime" and "Cancel Subscription" options, disclose automatic renewal terms, and submit compliance reports for FTC review. Who Qualifies for a Refund? Eligibility depends on when and how a user enrolled in or attempted to cancel Amazon Prime. Refunds are limited to U.S.-based customers with qualifying activity between June 23, 2019, and June 23, 2025. Eligibility Type: Automatic Refund Criteria: Enrolled through a "challenged" sign-up page and used 3 or fewer Prime benefits in 12 months Refund Method: Automatically issued by Amazon Maximum Refund: Up to $51 Eligibility Type: Claim-Based Refund Criteria: Attempted to cancel or used up to 10 Prime benefits in 12 months Refund Method: Must file a claim form Maximum Refund: Up to $51 These criteria ensure refunds go to customers most affected by unclear or misleading Prime enrollment flows. Refund Distribution Process The settlement divides the refund process into two distinct waves. The first wave involves automatic refunds, while the second wave allows eligible users to file claims through Amazon's refund portal once notified. Phase Group Action Needed Timeline Phase 1 Automatic No action required. Within 90 days of Refunds Refunds sent directly settlement approval Phase 2 Claim-Based Submit a claim online, Within 180 days of Refunds by mail, or by email receiving the claim notice Payments will be credited to the user's original payment method or issued by check, depending on account records. Claim Your Amazon Settlement Refunds Eligible Amazon Prime members can easily ensure they receive any refunds they are owed. First, log in to your Amazon account and check the "Memberships & Subscriptions" section to verify your membership details, ensuring your activity is between June 23, 2019, and June 23, 2025. If you qualify for an automatic refund, no action is needed. Amazon will refund your original payment method within 90 days of settlement approval. If you do not receive an automatic refund, expect communication from Amazon and the FTC via your registered email or postal address with claim instructions. Complete and submit the claim form through the mail within 180 days, and keep all confirmation receipts for your records. Amazon's Obligations Under the FTC Settlement Amazon must now ensure its subscription interfaces are transparent and user-friendly. This includes: -- Simplified cancellation flows with fewer confirmation screens. -- Clear disclosure of recurring billing terms. -- An explicit "Decline Prime" button during checkout. -- Annual reports to the FTC confirming compliance. These reforms are designed to prevent the recurrence of deceptive practices and promote greater accountability across Amazon's subscription model. Important Limitations Customers are eligible for refunds up to a maximum of $51 each, but please note that this offer is exclusively available to U.S.-based Prime account holders. If the total number of claims submitted surpasses the $1.5 billion allocation for refunds, the amounts granted to individual claimants may be adjusted downward on a proportional basis. It's important to understand that while Amazon is participating in this settlement, it does not acknowledge any wrongdoing or liability. The company firmly believes it has operated within legal boundaries. Nonetheless, Amazon has committed to implementing changes designed to enhance transparency and foster greater trust among consumers. What Consumers Should Do? Consumers should regularly check their Amazon accounts, payment histories, and emails from @amazon.com or @ftc.gov. All official refund and claim updates will appear on the FTC's dedicated portal. -- Automatic refunds will be processed within 90 days. -- Claim-based refunds require users to submit applications within 180 days. -- Refunds are capped at $51 per eligible customer. -- Only U.S. Prime members qualify for this compensation. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs): 1. How much can I receive from the Amazon Prime settlement? Eligible consumers can receive up to $51 per account, representing roughly one annual Prime membership. The final amount may be adjusted based on usage and claim volume. 2. When will refunds be distributed? Automatic refunds will be processed within 90 days of the settlement approval, while claim-based refunds must be submitted within 180 days after receiving a claim notice. 3. Do I need to apply for the refund? Some users will receive automatic refunds. However, others who used Prime more frequently or faced cancellation difficulties must file a claim form once notified by Amazon. 4. How will I know if I'm eligible? Amazon and the FTC will notify eligible customers directly by email, postal mail, or through account alerts. You can also check eligibility updates at ftc.gov/amazon-refunds. 5. Will international Amazon Prime users receive refunds? No. The settlement applies exclusively to U.S.-based Prime subscribers with billing addresses in the United States. [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks Leave to File Reconsideration Bid ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE MARTINHO, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, Case No. 4:22-cv-06849-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants will move the Court for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's Sept. 22, 2025 summary judgment and class certification order. Specifically, while the Court's order states that Amazon's control over Plaintiff is relevant to determining whether Plaintiff’s time taking a photo for a security badge and viewing a welcome presentation are compensable, the order states that control is irrelevant to assessing whether those same activities are compensable for class certification purposes. On July 14, 2022, Plaintiff Michelle Martinho filed this class action in Alameda Superior Court asserting claims for unpaid wages under the California Labor Code and for alleged unfair business practices. On May 1, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and Amazon filed a motion for summary judgment as to the Plaintiff. Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, and online advertising. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5igyvN at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Bradley J. Hamburger, Esq. Lauren M. Blas, Esq. Jamila D. Macebong, Esq. Megan Cooney, Esq. Amber D. Mckonly, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: BHamburger@gibsondunn.com LBlas@gibsondunn.com JMacEbong@gibsondunn.com MCooney@gibsondunn.com AMcKonly@gibsondunn.com AMERICA PAC: Bids for Class Certification Due Jan. 8, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE AND BOBBI PISOR, v. AMERICA PAC; GROUP AMERICA, LLC; AND ELON MUSK, Case No. 2:25-cv-01691-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Wendy Beetlestone entered an order granting joint stipulation for extension of deadlines: -- Motions for class certification; Jan. 8, 2026 -- Motions for summary judgment and/or Sept. 22, 2026 Daubert motion: America PAC is a super PAC created by Elon Musk with the backing of a number of prominent tech businessmen. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BPe5lZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. Jeremy E. Abay, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com jabay@llrlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Matthew H. Haverstick, Esq. KLEINBARD LLC Three Logan Square, 5th Floor 1717 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 568-2000 Facsimile: (215) 568-0140 E-mail: mhaverstick@kleinbard.com - and - Chris K. Gober, Esq. Anne Marie Mackin, Esq. Jesse Vazquez, Esq. LEX POLITICA PLLC Austin, TX 78734 Telephone: (512) 354-1785 E-mail: cgober@lexpolitica.com amackin@lexpolitica.com jvazquez@lexpolitica.com - and - Andy Taylor, Esq. ANDY TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 2628 Highway 36S #288 Brenham, TX 77833 Telephone: (713) 412-4025 E-mail: ataylor@ataylorlaw.com ANGI INC: Rhodes Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- ROCHELLE RHODES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANGI, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03187 (D. Colo., October 9, 2025) is a collective action that arose from 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, the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, and the common law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff and similarly situated employees worked over 40 hours per week without the required overtime premium for all time worked over 40 hours. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a remote sales representative from approximately November 2024 through January 2025. Angi, Inc, is a company that connects homeowners with home service professionals with its principal place of business in Centennial, Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com APPFOLIO INC: Miller Files Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AppFolio Inc. The case is styled as Brian Miller, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AppFolio Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-09782 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 13, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. AppFolio, Inc. -- https://www.appfolio.com/ -- is an American company founded in 2006 that offers software-as-a-service applications and services to the real estate industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 92102 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com ARCONIC INC: Settlement Fairness Hearing Scheduled for Feb. 10 -------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE JONATHAN RAUL, derivatively on behalf of ARCONIC INC, Plaintiff, v. JAMES F. ALBAUGH, AMY E. ALVING, CHRISTOPHER L. AYERS, CHARLES BLANKENSHIP, ARTHUR D. COLLINS, JR., ELIVIER L. DOTY, RAJIV L. PIER SAN P. HESS, SEAN 0. MAHONEY, DAVID J. MILLER, STANLEY O'NEAL, JOHN C. PLANT, ULRICH R. SCHMIDT, KLAUS KLEINFELD, and KEN GIACOBBE, Defendants, -and- ARCONIC INC., Nominal Defendant. CA. No. 18-930-JLH SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF COMMON STOCK OF HOWMET AEROSPACE INC. (:HOWMET" OR THE COMPANY") AS OF MAY 23, 2025 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the United States District Court for the District of Delaware has preliminary approved a proposed Settlement of the stockholder derivative action (the "Derivative Action" or "Action"), that, if finally approved, will, among other things, fully and completely release the claims asserted in the Derivative Action and the Plaintiff's Released Claims. If the Court approves the proposed Settlement, you will be forever barred from contesting the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the proposed Settlement and from pursuing the Plaintiff's Released Claims. If you have not already reviewed the full Notice and the Stipulation (including its Addendum and Amended Exhibits), those documents are available on the Company's website at https://www.howmet.com/shareholder-information/, and you are encouraged to review them. This Summary Notice should be read in conjunction with, and is qualified by reference to, the full Notice and the Stipulation. As part of the proposed Settlement, Howmet will adopt certain Corporate Governance Reforms. For details on these reforms, please refer to the Stipulation, including its Exhibit A, which has been filed with the Court and is available on the Company's website at https://www.howmet.com/shareholder-information/. Howmet acknowledges and agrees that the Action and settlement efforts were substantial and material factors in Howmet's decision to agree to adopt, implement, and maintain the Corporate Governance Reforms for the Effective Term; that the Corporate Governance Reforms confer substantial benefits on the Company and its shareholders; and that Howmet's commitment to adopt, implement, and maintain the Corporate Governance Reforms for the Effective Term will serve the Company's and its shareholders' best interests, and constitutes fair, reasonable and adequate consideration for the release of Plaintiff's Released Claims. In consideration for the substantial benefits conferred upon Howmet as a direct result of the Settlement and the efforts of Plaintiff's Counsel in creating the benefits to the Company, Howmet has agreed that Plaintiff's Counsel shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses to Plaintiff's Counsel in the total amount of $1,200,000 (the "Agreed Fee and Expense Amount"), subject to the Court's approval. For the avoidance of doubt, the Court-awarded Fee and Expense Award shall be paid from available insurance proceeds. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Stipulation, Howmet and the Individual Defendants, and any of their affiliates or successors, shall have no obligation, responsibility or liability whatsoever to pay or cause to be paid any portion of the Fee and Expense Award. The requested Agreed Fee and Expense Amount is subject to approval by the Court. Any changes by any court to the Agreed Fee and Expense Amount will not otherwise affect the Finality of the Settlement. Plaintiff's Counsel may apply for a proposed service award for Plaintiff in recognition of the substantial benefits it helped to create for all Current Howmet Shareholders ("Service Award"). Any Service Award approved by the Court shall be funded from the Fee and Expense Award approved by the Court. Pursuant to an Order of the Court, a hearing will be held on February 10,2026, at 10:00 a.m., either in person at the U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, Courtroom 6D, located at the J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building, 844 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, or remotely by telephone or videoconference (in the discretion of the Court and without further notice to Current Howmet Shareholders), to: (1) determine whether the terms of the Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) consider any objections to the Settlement submitted in accordance with the Notice; (3) determine whether the Judgment finally approving the Settlement, substantially in the form of Amended Exhibit E of the Stipulation, should be entered, dismissing the Action with prejudice and releasing Plaintiff's Released Claims against Plaintiff's Released Persons; (4) if the Settlement and dismissal are approved, determine whether the requested Agreed Fee and Expense Amount for Plaintiff's Counsel and the Service Award to Plaintiff, if requested, which will be funded from the Fee and Expense Award, should be approved; and (5) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. The Action is not a "class action" and no individual shareholder has the right to receive any direct recovery from the Settlement. The Settlement, if approved by the Court, will fully and finally resolve the issues raised in the Action. Upon entry of the Judgment, all of Plaintiff's Released Claims against the Defendants shall be dismissed with prejudice and the Plaintiff's Released Persons shall be released from Plaintiff's Released Claims. If you are a record or beneficial holder of the Company's securities as of May 23, 2025, your rights will be affected by this Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in Company securities. Any Current Howmet Shareholder may make an objection and appear at the Settlement Hearing if he, she, or it has any reason why the Settlement of the Action embodied in the Stipulation should not be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, or why the Judgment should or should not be entered, or why the requested Agreed Fee and Expense Amount should not be awarded. Shareholders cannot ask the Court to order a different settlement; the Court can only approve or reject the Settlement. To object, the shareholder must file a written objection which sets forth: (1) the shareholder's name, address, and telephone number and, if represented by counsel, the name, address and telephone number of his, her or its counsel; (2) documentation sufficient to prove ownership of Company common stock as of May 23, 2025, including the number of shares of Company common stock currently owned and the date of the shareholder's purchase of those shares, and a statement that the shareholder will continue to hold shares of Company common stock as of the date of the Settlement Hearing; (3) the case name and number (Raul v. Albaugh, et al., Case No. 1:18-00930-JLH); (4) a statement of the objection and the basis for the objection; (5) notice of whether you intend to appear at the Settlement Hearing, at which you are not required to appear; and (6) any and all documentation or evidence in support of such objection, and the identities of any witnesses you intend to call at the Settlement Hearing. Your objection must be served electronically via the Court's ECF filing system, by hand, or by overnight mail postmarked at least fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the Settlement Hearing and sent to the Court; Plaintiff's Counsel; and Counsel for the Defendants at the following addresses: COURT: Office of the Clerk United States District Court 844 North King St. Unit 18 Wilmington, DE 19801-3570 FOR PLAINTIFF: Joshua M. Lifshitz LUFSHITZ LAW PLLC 1190 Broadway Hewett NY 11557 FOR DEFENDANTS: Carrie M. Reilly Cynthia Fernandez Lumermann Amy R. Weintraub WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 The Parties are authorized to request from any objector additional information or documentation sufficient to prove his, her or its holding of Company common stock. Any Current Howmet Shareholder who files and serves a timely, written objection in accordance with the instructions above may appear at the Settlement Hearing either personally or through counsel retained at the objector's expense. Any such objector need not attend the Settlement Hearing however, in order to have the objection considered by the Court. Any Person who does not timely file and serve a notice of intention to appear in accordance with the above shall be foreclosed from raising any objection to the Settlement and shall, not be permitted to appear at the Settlement Hearing, except for good cause shown. Any Person who fails to object in the manner prescribed above shall forever be foreclosed from (a) making any objections to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement, (b) making any objections to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Judgment to be entered approving the Settlement, or (c) making any objections to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the requested Agreed Fee and Expense Amount and/or Service Award, as set forth in the Stipulation, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, but shall otherwise be forever bound by the Judgment to be entered, the dismissal of the Action with prejudice, and any and all of the releases set forth in the Stipulation. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact Plaintiff's Counsel at the address listed above, jlifshitz@lifshitzlaw.com, or (516) 493-9780. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, COURT CLERK'S OFFICE, OR DEFENDANTS REGARDING THIS NOTICE. ATTAINX INC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Durand Says ---------------------------------------------------------- RYAN NICOLAS DURAND, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATTAINX INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01713 (E.D. Va., October 7, 2025) seeks monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief arising from Defendant's failure to safeguard the personally identifying information of Plaintiff and the Class members which resulted in unauthorized access to its information systems between April 13, 2025 and May 15, 2025, causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class members. On May 15, 2025, the Defendant detected unusual activity in its computer systems and ultimately determined that an unauthorized third party accessed its network and obtained certain files from its systems between April 13 and May 15, 2025. Although Defendant purportedly discovered the data breach on May 15, 2025, the Defendant failed to immediately notify and warn Plaintiff and Class members, with Defendant waiting until September 30, 2025 to provide written notice to Plaintiff and the proposed Class. The complaint alleges that Defendant failed to undertake adequate measures to safeguard the private information of Plaintiff and the proposed Class members. As a result, the Plaintiff and the proposed Class members have suffered widespread injury and damages necessitating Plaintiff seeking relief on a class wide basis, says the suit. Ryan Nicolas Durand is a former employee of the Defendant. AttainX Inc. is a Virginia company and provides emergent technology, software products, and services to government agencies including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, U.S. Air Force, Homeland Security and EXIM Bank of United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Justin M. Sheldon, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310 Richmond, VA 23223 Telephone: (804) 351-9040 Facsimile: (804) 351-9170 E-mail: Lee@bbtrial.com Justin@bbtrial.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com BANK OF AMERICA: Aldana Wins Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MYNOR VILLATORO ALDANA AND JANET HOBSON1, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 4:22-cv-00859-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Parties shall meet and confer and within 21 days of the issuance of this Order, submit a joint scheduling proposal for the remainder of this action. The proposed class will consist of tens of thousands of members and the individual recovery will be relatively small. Therefore, the Court finds plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated the superiority of this class action. The Plaintiffs allege that, during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, defendant represented it would take COVID-19-related hardship into consideration when assessing requests for overdraft ("OD") and nonsufficient funds ("NSF") fee relief. In reliance on those representations, the plaintiffs incurred fees rather than taking steps to avoid them. In their supplemental briefing, plaintiffs now propose: California Class (represented by plaintiff Aldana): "All BofA consumer checking accountholders in California who, from Sept. 1, 2020 through June 30, 2022, were charged overdraft fees or insufficient funds fees by BofA after BofA promised to consider waiving such fees due to the pandemic, attempted to seek a refund based on pandemic related reasons (as evidenced by a refund request reason code of "Hardship" or "Relationship" in BofA’s business records), and did not receive a refund for such fees." New Jersey Class (represented by plaintiff Hobson): "All BofA consumer checking accountholders in New Jersey who, from Sept. 1, 2020 through June 30, 2022, were charged overdraft fees or insufficient funds fees by BofA after BofA promised to consider waiving such fees due to the pandemic, attempted to seek a refund based on pandemic related reasons (as evidenced by a refund request reason code of "Hardship" or "Relationship" in BofA's business records), and did not receive a refund for such fees." Bank of America is a multinational investment bank and financial services holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DWi86z at no extra charge.[CC] BEECHNUT SQUARE: Garcia Sues Over Unlawful Physical Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------ Erik Garcia, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BEECHNUT SQUARE, L.P., Case No. 4:25-cv-04871 (S.D. Tex., 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 once before as a customer and advocate for the disabled. The Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of the revisit is to be a return customer of Guacamayas, 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 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. BEECHNUT SQUARE, L.P. is a Texas limited partnership that transacts business in the State of Texas and within this judicial district.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Phone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com BELLA SLOAN: Clarke Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls --------------------------------------------------------- SIMONE ANNA KAY CLARKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BELLA SLOAN ENTERPRISES LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-25-015789 (Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Fl., October 16, 2025) is a putative class action complaint against the Defendant for engaging in telemarketing text messages at unlawful times to promote its goods and services, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. According to the complaint, the Defendant sends telephonic solicitations to the Plaintiff to advertise, promote, and market its property, goods, and services. Overall, the Defendant sent Plaintiff approximately two marketing text messages before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at Plaintiff's location). However, the Plaintiff never signed any type of authorization permitting or allowing Defendant to send him telephone solicitations before 8 am or after 9 pm. The complaint alleges that the Defendant's unlawful conduct resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to the Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Broward County, Florida. The Defendant is a business management consultant in Jenkintown, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, Florida 33305 Telephone: 813-340-8838 E-mail: mitchell@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com BMX HOLDINGS: Doane Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT A. DOANE, Plaintiff v. BMX HOLDINGS, LLC, MARCIO A. VASCONCELOS, and MAXSUEL A. VASCONCELOS, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-13039-JEK (D. Mass., October 16, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendants for making telemarketing calls to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, including the Plantiff's, as part of their multi-state illegal telemarketing activities, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. According to the complaint, the Defendants claim to buy houses in "any condition" and claim to be the "best source for real estate investors to find great discount and investment property." Defendants advertise their services on websites, including but not limited to www.5minuteshomeoffer.com. At all relevant times, the Defendants are engaged in extensive multi-state telemarketing efforts in order to promote their purported services. This telemarketing includes "cold calling" consumers on the National Do Not Call Registry, and widespread use of local caller-ID spoofing and fictitious names including "5 Minute Home Offer." The complaint relates that the Plaintiff's residential wireless telephone number is on the National Do Not Call Registry and has been for more than one year prior to the calls at issue. He alleges the he never consented to receive calls from Defendants. He never did business with any of the Defendants. He nevertheless received at least 10 unsolicited calls from Defendants as part of their illegal telemarketing campaign, between January 17, 2022 and February 8, 2023. The calls all followed the same fact pattern. Specifically, the calls were made from various numbers with local prefixes, and the agents read from the same script promoting Defendants' real estate services. The Plaintiff and all members of the Class have been harmed by the acts of the Defendants because their privacy has been violated and they were annoyed and harassed. In addition, the calls occupied their telephone lines, rendering them unavailable for legitimate communication, including while driving, working, and performing other critical tasks, adds the complaint. Plaintiff Robert A. Doane is a resident of Massachusetts. Defendant BMX Holdings, LLC ("BMX") is a limited liability company registered in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Defendant Maxsuel A. Vasconcelos was the "manager" of BMX and directed and controlled BMX. Defendant Marcio A. Vasconcelos managed BMX's employees and contractors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Pastor, Esq. PASTOR LAW OFFICE, PC 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 742-9700 Facsimile: (617) 742-9701 E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com BRAG HOUSE: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to House of Doge ----------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Brag House Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: TBH) related to its sale to House of Doge Inc., an affiliate of the Dogecoin Foundation. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, House of Doge will become the majority shareholder of the newly combined company. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/brag-house-holdings-inc/ It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] BRIGHTSTAR GLOBAL: Rios Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAVIER RIOS, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRIGHTSTAR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00511 (D.R.I., October 6,2025) is a class action arising out of Brightstar'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. According to the complaint, the Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack in December to compromise Defendant's network that contained personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other individuals. Despite learning of the Data Breach on or about November 17, 2024, and determining that Private Information was involved in the breach, Defendant did not begin sending notices of the Data Breach until October 3, 2025, says the suit. As a result of Brightstar's Data Breach, Plaintiff and over 100,000 Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of financial losses resulting from identity theft, out-of-pocket expenses, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack. Had Defendant properly monitored its computers, it would have discovered the intrusion sooner, and potentially been able to mitigate the injuries to Plaintiff and the Class. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief, seeking redress for Brightstar's unlawful conduct. Headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island, Brightstar Consulting LLP provides consulting services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 831-7730 Facsimile: (401) 861-6064 E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 COUNTRY LIFE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hampton Says --------------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Country Life Natural Foods, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12103 (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://countrylifefoods.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 was looking for a supplier offering a selection of natural and wholesome products to support a healthy lifestyle. She began searching on Google and came across the Defendant's website. However, she encountered accessibility barriers that hindered her navigation. A navigation submenu opened automatically and could not be skipped or closed, making it difficult for her to browse quickly and efficiently. The website also lacked a "skip to content" link to bypass these elements. Additionally, when she selected a Lavender Essential Oil and added it to the cart, the focus shifted away to the cart's open dialog, interrupting her browsing flow and making it difficult to continue with the checkout process, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Country Life Natural Foods' 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. Country Life Natural Foods operates the website that offers natural products including dried fruits, nuts, grains, baking ingredients, herbs, supplements, health and beauty items.[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 D & D SEAFOOD: Paradise Tails Sues Over Price-Fixing Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------- PARADISE TAILS INC., REEL FAITH FISHING LLC, ERICK BRAVO, JOSE D. HERNANDEZ, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. D & D SEAFOOD CORPORATION, KEYS FISHERIES, INC., DENNIS DOPICO a/k/a Snake, and GARY GRAVES, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-24603 (S.D. Fla., October 6, 2025) is a class action seeking to challenge Defendants' unlawful agreement to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the prices paid to fishermen for stone crab claws and spiny lobsters in violation of the Sherman Act, the Florida Antitrust Act, and common law unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, prior to the commencement of the fishing season for spiny lobsters (typically August 6 through March 31) and stone crabs (typically October 15 through May 1), the Defendants, along with other unnamed co-conspirators, would gather together to agree upon the initial prices they would pay fishermen for each pound of these products brought to dock. The Defendants would then coordinate throughout the season to adjust prices in lockstep. If any purchasers offered fishermen prices above the agreed-upon fixed price, those purchasers faced various repercussions from the Defendants and their unnamed co-conspirators. As a result of Defendants' alleged conspiracy, fishermen during the Class Period have been underpaid at least tens of millions of dollars for their stone crab claw and spiny lobster harvests, asserts the complaint. To remedy Defendants' conspiracy and injury to the market, Plaintiffs and the proposed class seek compensatory damages to be trebled in accordance with the antitrust laws, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. Plaintiff Paradise Tails Inc. is a commercial fishing business based in Marathon, Florida. D&D Seafood Corporation operates as a seafood wholesaler and seafood processing center in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin J. Widlanski, Esq. Brandon M. Sadowsky, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 Facsimile: (305) 372-3508 E-mail: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com bsadowsky@kttlaw.com - and - Joseph Saveri, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM 601 California Street, Suite 1505 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com - and - Adam J. Zapala, Esq. Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq. Christopher F. Jeu, Esq. Christian S. Ruano, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: azapala@cpmlegal.com ecastillo@cpmlegal.com cjeu@cpmlegal.com cruano@cpmlegal.com - and - Brandon S. Floch, Esq. Jeffrey A. Neiman, Esq. NEIMAN MAYS FLOCH & ALMEIDA PLLC 100 SE 3rd Ave, Suite 805 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Telephone: (954) 462-1200 E-mail: bfloch@nmfalawfirm.com jneiman@nmfalawfirm.com DORAI HOME INC: Garcia Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Silvia Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dorai Home, Inc. doing business as: www.DoraiHome.com, Case No. 25CU048286C was removed from the Superior Court of California, San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Oct. 10, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02697-JES-BJW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Dorai Home -- https://doraihome.com/ -- creates thoughtfully-designed kitchen and bathroom products that prevent mold by eliminating moisture with diatomaceous earth.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Erica Graves, Esq. Heewon Lee, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East, 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (424) 223-8775 Fax: (424) 389-7165 Email: erica.graves@blankrome.com heewon.lee@blankrome.com EJEC VENTURES: Echols Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- TAZINIQUE ECHOLS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ejec Ventures, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12104 (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.tryauri.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 18, 2025, the Plaintiff browsed Google, as she was looking for mushroom gummies. She came across Defendant's website which offers mushroom based dietary supplements. However, as she tried to navigate the site and complete her purchase, she encountered several accessibility barriers that significantly hindered her ability to proceed. Specifically, when the sub-menu received focus, it expanded automatically, forcing her to navigate through every sub-menu item. Furthermore, after she added the desired gummies to the cart, a cart dialog box opened, but the focus did not move to it and was instead lost in the background, and the assistive technology did not announce the confirmation message, leaving her unaware that her action had been successfully completed. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Ejec Ventures' 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. Ejec Ventures, LLC operates the website that offers a variety of mushroom based elixirs and gummies.[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 EPISOURCE LLC: Dunlap Suit Transferred to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Lowell Dunlap, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Episource LLC, Loleetia Harper, Case No. 2:25-cv-02604 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, 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-09719-SRM-AJR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. Episource LLC -- https://www.episource.com/ -- provide comprehensive risk adjustment coding services, delivering superior results that improve year-over-year.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Michael Treglio, Esq. Potter Handy, LLP 100 Pine Street Suite 1250 San Diego, CA 92111 Phone: (415) 534-1911 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: jimt@potterhandy.com The Defendant is represented by: Vassi Iliadis, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 785-4600 Fax: (310) 785-4601 Email: vassi.iliadis@hoganlovells.com EXETER FINANCE: Bodnar Suit Transferred to S.D. Mississippi ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Lisa Bodnar, Tracy Stanley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Exeter Finance LLC f/k/a Exeter Finance Corp., Defendant; Loss Prevention Services, LLC, Movant; Case No. 2:23-cv-01398-AB was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on Oct. 10, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:25-mc-00108-DCB-BWR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Exeter Finance LLC provides commercial finance solutions.[BN] The Movant is represented by: Reid S. Manley, Esq. BURR & FORMAN, LLP 3100 SouthTrust Tower 420 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 251-3000 Email: rmanley@burr.com EZAKI GLICO: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Moran Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON MORAN, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EZAKI GLICO USA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08190 (S.D.N.Y., October 3, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.glico.com/us, 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, New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on September 24, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Pocky Chocolate Covered Biscuit Sticks from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Ezaki Glico USA Corporation operates the website that offers information about the Company's confectionery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal FIFTH KINGDOM LLC: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Lopez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. FIFTH KINGDOM LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-08437 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 11, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://www.plantalchemyremedies.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. 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. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. FIFTH KINGDOM LLC, operates the Plant Alchemy Remedies online retail store, as well as the Plant Alchemy Remedies interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Danalgottlieb@aol.com Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal FLEXTAIL TECHNOLOGY: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLEXTAIL TECHNOLOGY (USA) INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08236 (S.D.N.Y., October 3, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.flextail.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, New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on October 1, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Portable Rechargeable Battery from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Flextail Technology (USA) Inc. operates the website that offers outdoor gear and equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal FLUOR FEDERAL: Herzog Balks at Anti-Poaching, Wage-Fixing Policies ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN HERZOG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLUOR FEDERAL SERVICES, INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation, ATKINSON CONSULTING LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, BJMC GLOBAL, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, IPARAMETRICS, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, NOVACES, L.L.C., a Foreign Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-61991-MD (S.D. Fla., October 3, 2025) arises from the Defendants' violations of the Sherman Act and the Florida Antitrust Act of 1980 by entering into non-solicitation, anti-poaching, and wage-fixing agreements. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and as a class action on behalf of Defendants' subcontractors and/or employees to provide Federal Emergency Management Agency Technical Assistance Contracting services, alleges illegal conspiracy among and between Defendants and other Fluor FEMA PA TAC IV and/or PA TAC V approved subcontractors to not recruit, poach, or enter FEMA TAC services contracts with one another's FEMA TAC subcontractors and/or employees in order to thereby suppress their wages, that was not known to Plaintiff and the Class Members until, at the earliest, mid-2022 when Plaintiff attempted to move from Atkinson to another Fluor FEMA PA TAC IV subcontractor, and numerous Defendants, all subsequently informed him that they were under a specific anti-poach mandate by Fluor and that they could not speak with him regarding potential FEMA TAC opportunities. The Defendants engaged in per se violations of the federal and state laws by entering into non-solicitation, anti-poaching, and wage-fixing agreements for the express purpose of depressing and/or reducing market-based wages for Class Members that are typically associated with the active recruitment of workers in a competitive industry, especially for a government contract, and the nature and necessary effect of Defendants' agreements are so plainly anticompetitive that no elaborate study of the industry is needed to establish their illegality, asserts the complaint. While protecting and enhancing their profits, the Defendants, through their non-solicitation, anti-poaching, and wage-fixing agreements, robbed Class Members of millions of dollars of wages for which Plaintiff and the Class now seek relief, alleges the complaint. Fluor Federal Services, Inc. is a global engineering, procurement and construction company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher S. Prater, Esq. Jonathan E. Pollard, Esq. POLLARD PLLC 401 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-2218 Telephone: (954) 332-2380 E-mail: cprater@pollardllc.com jpollard@pollardllc.com - and - Craig J. Ackermann, Esq. Brian Denlinger, Esq. Avi Kreitenberg, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C. 315 S. Beverly Dr., Ste. #504 Beverly Hills, CA, 90212 Telephone: (310) 277-0614 Facsimile: (310) 277-0635 E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com bd@ackermanntilajef.com ak@ackermanntilajef.com FPI MANAGEMENT: Jones Files Suit Over Calif. Labor Code Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID JONES, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees, Plaintiffs vs. FPI MANAGEMENT, INC., a California Corporation; FPI MANAGEMENT HOLDING COMPANY, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV30298 (Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Cal., October 16, 2025) is a Private Attorney General Action complaint against the Defendants for failure to comply with the California Labor Code seeking statutory attorneys' fees and costs, statutory penalties, costs of suit, and other available relief. According to the complaint, the Representative Plaintiff was hired by Defendants with the job title of maintenance supervisor from January 6, 2025 until July 20, 2025. While employed with Defendants, the Representative Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees were regularly required to work off-the-clock, and during their rest and meal periods. The Representative Plaintiff filed a PAGA Notice on August 11, 2025, by serving said Notice to all named Defendants and to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), in compliance with the California Labor Code. However, as of October 16, 2025, the Representative Plaintiff has not received correspondence from the LWDA regarding its intent to investigate Plaintiff's claims. This PAGA Complaint is brought on behalf of the Representative Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for these violations of the Labor Code: (i) failure to provide employment records; (ii) failure to pay overtime and double time; (iii) failure to provide rest and meal periods; (iv) failure to pay minimum wage; (v) failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements; (vi) failure to pay reporting time wages in violation; (vii) failure to pay split shift wages; (viii) failure to pay all wages earned on time; (ix) failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation; (x) failure to pay all paid time off and vacation time owed upon separation; (xi) failure to reimburse necessary, business-related expenses; and (xii) failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual. The Representative Plaintiff is a resident of California and was employed by FPI Management, Inc. and FPI Management Holding Company, Inc. The Aggrieved Employees are all other persons similarly situated who worked for Defendants in their California locations as non-exempt, hourly employees. Defendant FPI Management, Inc. is a California Corporation, licensed to do business and actually doing business in the State of California. Defendant FPI Management Holding Company, Inc. operates as a third-party property management company. Defendants named as DOES 1 through 100 are the fictitiously-named Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raffi Tapanian, Esq. TAPANIAN LAW, APC 611 N. Brand Blvd Suite 1300 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 433-4977 Facsimile: (818) 484-2654 E-mail: raffi@tapanianlaw.com GARY MUSSELWHITE: McCoy Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Terry Lamar McCoy v. Musselwhite, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-00992-LPR-JJV (E.D. Ark.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class pursuant to FCRP 23. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xYJXnG at no extra charge.[CC] GAYLORD FARM: Faces Smith Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- JIMMIE SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GAYLORD FARM ASSOCIATION INC. D/B/A GAYLORD SPECIALTY HEALTHCARE, Defendant, Case No. ________ (Conn. Super., New Haven Cty., October 6, 2025) is a class action against GSH for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated GSH patients' personally identifiable information and protected health information. On or about September 24, 2025, GSH filed official notice of a hacking incident with the Office of the Maine Attorney General. Based on the Notice sent to Plaintiff and Class Members, unusual activity was detected on some of its computer systems. GSH's investigation revealed that an unauthorized party had access to certain files that contained sensitive patient information, and that such access took place between December 16 and December 19, 2024. Yet, GSH waited nine months to notify the public that they were at risk. As a result of this delayed response, the Plaintiff and Class Members had no idea for nine months that their Private Information had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed and/or compromised during the Data Breach. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory judgment. Gaylord Farm Association Inc., based in Wallingford, Connecticut, is a rehabilitation health system that serves patients across Connecticut and northeast America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Neil P. Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com nwilliams@sirillp.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Brake Assemblies ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that two vehicle owners have filed a class action lawsuit against General Motors. Why: They claim GM sold vehicles with defective master brake cylinder assemblies. Where: The GM class action lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania federal court. A new class action lawsuit claims General Motors sold vehicles with defective master brake cylinder assemblies that can cause a partial or total loss of braking. Plaintiffs Eric Barron and Chelsey Thompson filed the class action lawsuit against General Motors on Oct. 2 in Pennsylvania federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, GM sold the plaintiffs and class members defective 2025 Chevrolet Traverse, GMC Acadia, Buick Enclave, Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon vehicles that contain defective master brake cylinder assemblies. The defective assemblies fail abruptly and without warning soon after vehicle delivery, leading to a partial or total loss of braking, the plaintiffs claim. "When the defect manifests, the vehicle instrument cluster displays numerous warning lights, including a red 'Brake' warning light and the Anti-lock Brake System (ABS) warning light, and displays a 'Service Brake System' message," the GM class action lawsuit states. The plaintiffs claim many owners, including Thompson, also experienced partial or total loss of braking, where the brake pedal either becomes stiff and hard to press or sinks into the floor. "Owners also report resorting to all manner of gimmicks to get the brakes to work, such as shutting the vehicle off and restarting and pumping the brake pedal," the plaintiffs say. GM knew about the brake defect and failed to repair it, class action alleges The plaintiffs claim GM failed to repair the defect under its New Vehicle Limited Warranty within a reasonable period of time and did not issue a safety recall regarding the defect. They allege GM had knowledge of the defect before selling the vehicles to customers, as earlier models had the same issue. They also claim GM learned about the defect through pre-sale testing, early consumer complaints and reports from dealerships. The plaintiffs are looking to represent anyone who purchased or leased a 2025 Chevrolet Traverse, GMC Acadia, Buick Enclave, Chevrolet Colorado or GMC Canyon vehicle in Pennsylvania or New York. They are suing for fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, violations of state lemon laws and consumer protection laws and unjust enrichment. They seek certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. GM is currently facing another lawsuit claiming it sold certain vehicles with a dangerous engine defect and that the company refused to provide an adequate or lasting remedy for the alleged defect under its express and implied warranties. The plaintiffs are represented by Sergei Lemberg of Lemberg Law LLC. The GM class action lawsuit is Barron, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-05696, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. [GN] GEO MANAGEMENT: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Lopez Says --------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEO MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08237 (S.D.N.Y., October 3, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://consultbeaute.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired person in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on October 1, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Biotin Gummies from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. The Plaintiff was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Geo Management Corporation operates the website that offers health and beauty products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE: Fails to Protect Private Info, Byron Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES BYRON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE AGENCY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01160 (N.D. Tex., October 16, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber security measures. According to the complaint, between March 6, 2025 and March 13, 2025, Goosehead lost control over its computer network and the highly sensitive personal information stored therein was stolen in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals. The Data Breach has impacted thousands of current and former clients and employees. Following an internal investigation, Defendant learned that the cybercriminals had gained unauthorized access to clients' and employees' personally identifiable information ("PII"), including but not limited to their names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers and/or state identification numbers, and financial account information. On October 10, 2025, seven months later, Goosehead finally began notifying Class Members and various government entities about the Data Breach. The complaint alleges that the Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity; failed to adequately monitor its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and securing the PII of Plaintiff; and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII--rendering it an easy target for cybercriminals. Specifically, Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class trusted Defendant with their PII. But Defendant betrayed that trust. Defendant failed to properly use up-to-date security practices to prevent the Data Breach. The Plaintiff is now subject to the present and continuing risk of fraud, identity theft, and misuse resulting from his PII being placed in the hands of unauthorized third parties. This injury was worsened by Defendant's failure to inform Plaintiff about the Data Breach in a timely fashion, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Goosehead and a data breach victim. Goosehead Insurance Agency LLC is an independent personal lines insurance agency that distributes products and services throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: 214-744-3000 Facsimile: 214-744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com GWG HOLDINGS: $50.95MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 13 -------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION IN RE GWG HOLDINGS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-00410-B CLASS ACTION This Document Relates To: All Actions SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES TO: All Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired L Bonds issued by GWG Holdings, Inc., pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement during the time period between June 3, 2020 and April 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class"): PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, that the securities class action is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff Frank Moore, on behalf of himself and the Class, and the Defendants have reached proposed settlements of the Class Action totaling $50,950,000.00 in cash that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Class Action. The Settlement Hearing will be held on January 13, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Jane J. Boyle of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, in Courtroom 1516 of the Earle Cabell Federal Building, located at 1100 Commerce Street, Dallas, Texas 75242-1003, for the following purposes: (i) to determine whether the Class should be certified for purposes of the Settlements; (ii) to determine whether the proposed Settlements on the terms and conditions provided for in the agreements with the GWG Defendants and Whitley Penn are fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class, and should be finally approved by the Court; (iii) to determine whether Judgments, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit E to the GWG Agreement, and as Exhibit B to the Whitley Penn Agreement, should be entered dismissing the Class Action with prejudice against Defendants and granting the releases specified and described in the agreements (and in the Class Notice); (iv) to determine whether the proposed Distribution Plan for the proceeds of the Settlements is fair and reasonable and should be approved; (v) to determine whether the motion by Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses should be approved; and (vi) to consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlements. The Settlement Hearing will be held on January 13, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Jane J. Boyle of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, in Courtroom 1516 of the Earle Cabell Federal Building, located at 1100 Commerce Street, Dallas, Texas 75242-1003, for the following purposes: (i) to determine whether the Class should be certified for purposes of the Settlements; (ii) to determine whether the proposed Settlements on the terms and conditions provided for in the agreements with the GWG Defendants and Whitley Penn are fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class, and should be finally approved by the Court; (iii) to determine whether Judgments, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit E to the GWG Agreement, and as Exhibit B to the Whitley Penn Agreement, should be entered dismissing the Class Action with prejudice against Defendants and granting the releases specified and described in the agreements (and in the Class Notice); (iv) to determine whether the proposed Distribution Plan for the proceeds of the Settlements is fair and reasonable and should be approved; (v) to determine whether the motion by Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses should be approved; and (vi) to consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlements. If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than December 30, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Class Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Class Action. You should not exclude yourself from the Class if you want the Court to approve the Settlements. Any objections to the proposed Settlements, the proposed Distribution Plan, and/or Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Class Counsel and Released Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than December 30, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Class Notice. If you have any questions about this Summary Notice, the proposed Settlements, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlements, please DO NOT contact the Court, the Office of the Clerk of the Court, Defendants, or their counsel. All questions should be directed to the Noticing Agent or Class Counsel. Requests for the Class Notice should be made to: GWG Class Action c/o Stretto, Inc. 410 Exchange, Ste 100 Irvine, CA 92602 (833) 307-4634 GWGClassAction@stretto.com https://gwgholdingstrust.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Class Notice, may be made to Class Counsel: Daniel C. Girard Girard Sharp LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 (415) 981-4800 dgirard@girardsharp.com By Order of the Court HP INC: $39MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 16 ----------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the HP Securities Litigation: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION YORK COUNTY ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY OF YORK RETIREMENT FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. HP INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 4:20-cv-07835-JSW (LJC) CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED HP INC. ("HP") COMMON STOCK BETWEEN NOVEMBER 5, 2015, AND JUNE 21, 2016, INCLUSIVE, AND ARE NOT OTHERWISE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS ("CLASS" OR "CLASS MEMBERS") THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on January 16, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Jeffrey S. White, via Zoom, at the United States District Court, Northern District of California, Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building & United States Courthouse, Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612. Class Members and members of the public may attend the Settlement Hearing remotely by accessing the following link: http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/jsw.At the hearing, the Court will determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement of the action as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement for $39,000,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice; (3) to award Lead Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund, and, if so, in what amounts; (4) to award Lead Plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(4) in connection with its representation of the Class; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND. To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release form by mail (postmarked no later than January 12, 2026) or electronically via the website (no later than January 12, 2026). Failure to submit your Proof of Claim by January 12, 2026, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude you from receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Action. If you purchased or acquired HP common stock between November 5, 2015, and June 21, 2016, inclusive, and were allegedly damaged thereby, and do not request exclusion from the Class, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and releases entered in the Action, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. You may review the Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), access the Proof of Claim, and find the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other Settlement documents, online at www.hpqsecuritiessettlement.com, or by writing to: HP Securities Settlement Claims Administrator c/o Verita Global P.O. Box 301135 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1135 Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Ellen Gusikoff Stewart 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 800-449-4900 settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED OR RECEIVED BY DECEMBER 22, 2025, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL CLASS MEMBERS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM. IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, AND/OR THE REQUEST BY LEAD COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES NOT TO EXCEED 30% OF THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $250,000, PLUS INTEREST ON BOTH AMOUNTS, AND AN AWARD TO LEAD PLAINTIFF NOT TO EXCEED $7,500. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT BY DECEMBER 22, 2025, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. DATED: September 22, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IM PRO MAKEUP: Faces Towns Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA TOWNS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IM PRO MAKEUP NY L.P. d/b/a IL MAKIAGE, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08255 (S.D.N.Y., October 6, 2025) is a civil action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its highly interactive website, www.ilmakiage.com, in a manner that is fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind and visually impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On September 2, 2025, the Plaintiff attempted to purchase make-up products from Defendant's website including base foundation and multi-use perfecting concealer. She was unable to complete either purchase due to pervasive accessibility barriers. The "Find My Shade" interface lacked Accessible Rich Internet Applications labeling and semantic structure, rendering it unreadable by NVDA. Interactive buttons such as "Add to Cart" and "I already know my shade" failed to announce their function or state, and the keyboard focus indicator was not discernible, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to revise its corporate policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that its Website becomes and remains accessible to blind and visually impaired users. IM PRO MAKEUP NY L.P. operates the website that offers cosmetics and skincare products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces Class Action Suit Over "Noxious Odors" ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica M. DeBois, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a group of Bogalusa residents have filed a proposed class action lawsuit against International Paper Company over its Louisiana facility's "noxious odors" that are allegedly "invading" their properties. Plaintiffs and putative class representatives Christina McCain, Jessica Martinez Manzo, and Matthew Thomas filed their lawsuit seeking class certification Sept. 25. According to the complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, International Paper has failed to use adequate odor mitigation strategies, processes, technologies, and/or equipment to control "fugitive emissions" from its Bogalusa facility. "The Facility uses the kraft chemical recovery process to make pulp from wood and manufactures paper products. This process is known to produce noxious odors," the 15-page complaint states. "The chemicals used to break down wood and products of the chemical reactions involved include hydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan, dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide. These substances generate highly odiferous noxious odors. In particular, hydrogen sulfide is known to create a rotten egg smell." The plaintiffs argue that a properly designed, operated, and maintained facility will "adequately capture," remove, and dispose of any noxious orders and prevent them from escaping into the ambient air. "Noxious odors from the Facility have interfered with activities in the surrounding areas (Class Area) and they have precluded the reasonable use and enjoyment of private and public spaces in those areas," the complaint states, noting that the facility's emissions have been the subject of "frequent and numerous" complaints by nearby residents. The plaintiffs allege the facility also has been issued notices of violations, or NOVs, by the Environmental Protection Agency. "Defendant intentionally, knowingly, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failed to properly construct, maintain, and/or operate the Facility," the filing states, adding that the odors have reduced the value of the plaintiffs' properties. The plaintiffs, in their filing, seek to represent a class defined as "all owner/occupants and renters of residential property residing within one and one-half (1.5) miles of the Facility at any time within two years prior to the filing of this Complaint." They estimate the number of separate residences within the class area exceeds 3,500. New Orleans law firm Class Martzell Bickford & Centola has agreed to work with Detroit firm Liddle Sheets PC on the case. According to the complaint, Liddle Sheets has litigated more than 100 cases across the nation involving the environmental contamination of neighborhoods. International Paper was sued in federal court earlier last month by a Mississippi woman who allegedly sustained "life-altering" injuries at the same Bogalusa mill. [GN] LHO SAN DIEGO: Frye Sues Over Hotel's Gender-Based Pricing Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------------- STEVE FRYE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LHO SAN DIEGO ONE LESSEE, INC. d/b/a HILTON SAN DIEGO GASLAMP QUARTER; DAVIDSON HOTEL COMPANY LLC; STRIPE, INC.; 2SPICY ENTERTAINMENT GMBH; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-02633-H-BJW (S.D. Cal., October 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code, and Business & Professions Code. This class action complaint is filed on behalf of the Plaintiff and all male and non-binary patrons who purchased an adult's LE GRAND CHEF meal during any and all of Defendants' Ladies' Night Out events at the Hilton San Diego Gaslamp Quarter hotel, because Defendants' Ladies' Night Out denied equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services to and discriminated against all male and non-binary patrons based solely on their sex or gender. Specifically, on Thursday night, August 7, 2025, Mr. Frye, wanting to enjoy dinner in a restaurant in San Diego's Gaslamp District, patronized Defendants' Ladies' Night Out with his female fiance. During Mr. Frye and his female fiance's patronage of this Ladies' Night Out at the Hotel, Mr. Frye, ordered and paid for a so-called LE GRAND CHEF meal for which Mr. Frye was required to pay and did pay $179.00 (excluding 18% service and 7.75% tax per person) while his female fiance and other female patrons, including wealthy female patrons, who ordered the same type of LE GRAND CHEF meal that evening paid only $169,00 (excluding 18% service and 7.75% tax per person) for the same type of LE GRAND CHEF meal. The $10.00 price difference between Mr. Frye's LE GRAND CHEF meal and his female fiance and other female patrons' LE GRAND CHEF meal that evening was based solely on the patrons' sex, just like the Hotel's website's advertisements touted for a man and woman's LE GRAND CHEF meal during Defendants' Ladies' Night Out, the suit asserts. As a result, Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class are similarly situated and were similarly treated unequally by the same course of unlawful conduct alleged herein, says the suit. LHO San Diego One Lessee, Inc., d/b/a Hilton San Diego Gaslamp Quarter, was founded in 2003. The Company's line of business includes operating public hotels and motels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfred G. Rava, Esq. RAVA LAW FIRM 3667 Voltaire Street San Diego, CA 92106 Telephone: (619) 238-1993 E-mail: alrava@ravalaw.com LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Bid for Class Settlement Prelim Approval Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Montana Strong, et al., v. LifeStance Health Group Incorporated, Case No. 2:23-cv-00682-KML (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Lanham entered an order denying the motion for preliminary approval of class settlement. If the parties wish to renew their motion with the same settlement terms, they must provide a clear explanation as to how the settlement came about; why it is not collusive; and why it is fair, particularly regarding the reversionary $750,000 fund and the relationship of the vouchers to the rest of the settlement. Additionally, the parties should clarify whether they believe the proposed settlement gives the court the discretion to award attorneys' fees in a way that would reduce the disproportionality when considering the monetary value of the settlement as a whole (for example, by awarding less than 25% of the $1.2 million fund in attorneys' fees if $750,000 for Subclasses 2 and 3 is also awarded). In the absence of that explanation, the court finds collusion is likely and the recovery is disproportionately skewed toward class counsel. Because the proposed settlement contains concerning attorneys' fees provisions, the present record does not allow for preliminary approval and the motion is denied without prejudice to renewal. The Plaintiffs filed this suit against LifeStance Health Group, alleging federal and state claims based on tracking technology LifeStance allegedly used on its website. Under the resulting proposed settlement agreement, the parties seek to certify for settlement purposes a class comprised of three subclasses: 1. 2. 3. Settlement Subclass 1: "All members of LifeStance's total patient population who booked at least one session through LifeStance's online booking tool, accessed through LifeStance's public website lifestance.com, between March 1, 2020 and April 30, 2023." Settlement Subclass 2: "All other members of LifeStance's total patient population between March 1, 2020 and April 30, 2023, not including those in Settlement Subclass 1." Settlement Subclass 3: "All persons who visited the LifeStance website between March 1, 2020 and April 30, 2023 but did not book appointments online or otherwise become patients." Members of Subclass 1 will, upon timely submittal of a claim form, receive a pro rata cash payment from a LifeStance-funded non reversionary fund of $1,203,405.00, less any amount the court awards for attorneys’ fees and costs. LifeStance is a mental healthcare company that offers "outpatient care services via in-person locations and telemedicine." A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Dxiku8 at no extra charge.[CC] LORETTO HEALTH: Class Cert Filing in Aderohunmu Due Jan. 16, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Aderohunmu v. Loretto Health & Rehabilitation Center, Case No. 5:24-cv-00731 (N.D.N.Y., Filed May 31, 2024), the Hon. Judge David N. Hurd entered an order granting insofar as and to the extent that the deadlines and schedules are extended as follows: (1) Plaintiffs deadline to move for class certification is extended to Jan. 16, 2026 (2) Plaintiffs expert disclosure deadline is extended to Feb. 10, 2026 (3) Defendants expert disclosure deadline is extended to March 24, 2026 (4) Rebuttal expert disclosure deadline is extended to April 7, 2026 (5) The deadline for all discovery (merit, named Plaintiffs, and class) to be completed, including all depositions, is extended to May 6, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) involving collection of unpaid wages. Loretto provides comprehensive healthcare services.[CC] MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Oral Argument in Lopez Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lopez v. Marriott International, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03308-RMR-KAS (D. Colo.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting request for oral argument on Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Accordingly, Marriott requests that the Court set a hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification and is available to appear for oral argument at a date and time most convenient for the Court. Additionally, Marriott advises that oral argument would provide an opportunity for less experienced counsel for Marriott to substantially participate in the proceedings. Specifically, Mr. Reichart will argue, in whole or in part, Marriott's opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. Mr. Reichart has been practicing law for fewer than seven years and his development would benefit from the opportunity to present argument in this action. Marriott is an American multinational company that operates, franchises, and licenses lodging brands that include hotel, residential, and timeshare properties. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CxMMe8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Michael P. O'Day, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 650 S. Exeter St., Suite 1100 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 580-3000 Facsimile: (410) 580-3001 E-mail: michael.oday@us.dlapiper.com MARYLAND: Refiling of Bid for Class Cert Due Jan. 12, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Matthew J. Maddox entered an order granting the Defendants' Consent Motion to Revise the Proposed Briefing Schedule for Class Certification as follows: That the briefing schedule for class certification is established as follows: 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 parties' pending April 30, 2025, motion is denied as moot. Maryland Department of Human Services helps Marylanders buy healthy foods, pay energy bills, and obtain medical assistance. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0ZZ7Bq at no extra charge.[CC] MCKESSON CORP: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 5 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRUE HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC, INC. and MCLAUGHLIN CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATES, INC., individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons, v. MCKESSON CORPORATION, MCKESSON TECHNOLOGIES INC. and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 4:13-cv-02219-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order regarding briefing schedule for the plaintiffs' second renewed motion for class certification: The Plaintiffs' second renewed motion Oct. 24, 2025 for class certification: The Defendants' opposition to the Dec. 5, 2025 Plaintiffs' second renewed motion for class certification: The Plaintiffs' reply in support of Jan. 9, 2026 second renewed motion for class certification: Hearing on the Plaintiffs' second renewed Jan. 22, 2026 motion for class certification: at 2 p.m. Pursuant to the Court's request at the Case Management Conference held on September 23, 2025, and the Court's Minute Order dated September 23, 2025, the Plaintiffs True Health Chiropractic, Inc. and McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. and Defendants McKesson Corporation and McKesson Technologies, Inc. McKesson distributes pharmaceuticals and provides healthcare-related services like medical supply chain management and health information technology. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ikHQ1z at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650 San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com - and - Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Glenn L. Hara, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonqiun Rd., Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com ghara@andersonwanca.com The Defendants are represented by: Tiffany Cheung, Esq. Camille Framroze, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 E-mail: TCheung@mofo.com CFramroze@mofo.com MDL 3035: Jackson Wins Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jackson v. Newport Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02174 (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 Jackson suit is consolidated in AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION, MDL 3035. These putative class actions present common factual questions arising from the allegation that the AME Church, senior Church officials, and financial companies contracted to administer the Church retirement plan were negligent in managing the plan and breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants, resulting in substantial losses to the plan that were discovered in 2021. All actions involve overlapping putative classes of participating employees, and investigations that will affect all actions reportedly are ongoing. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iU0lFl at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3143: Bid to Compel Depositions of Former Plaintiffs Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, Case No. 1:25-md-03143 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ona T. Wang entered an order denying OpenAI's motion to compel limited three-hour depositions of Former Plaintiffs. Accordingly, because OpenAI has failed to make a strong showing that depositions of Former Plaintiffs are narrowly tailored and not available from a party. However, given that the discovery that OpenAI seeks may be relevant to OpenAI's defenses and class certification, this order does not preclude OpenAI from seeking such discovery through other less intrusive discovery means. OpenAI fails to explain why Mr. Diaz's state of mind testimony is so unique and unavailable from other named class plaintiffs such that a deposition of an absent class member is appropriate and narrowly tailored. Regarding Ms. Silverman's statements about OpenAI, ChatGPT, and this lawsuit specifically, OpenAI fails to identify what information Ms. Silverman would testify about that is unique to her and unavailable from any of the named class plaintiffs such that a deposition of an absent class member is appropriate. Accordingly, OpenAI has failed to make the required strong showing that a deposition of Mr. Winchester is narrowly tailored and not available from a party. OpenAI operates as an AI research and deployment company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SAhkrE at no extra charge.[CC] META PLATFORMS: OPERS Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ohio Public Employees Retirement System v. Meta Platforms, Inc. f/k/a Facebook, Inc. et al. (RE META PLATFORMS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 3:21-cv-08812-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the schedule for class certification briefing as follows: 1. The deadline for Lead Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification shall be moved from Nov. 12, 2025 to Dec. 12, 2025; 2. The deadline for the Defendants to file their opposition to class certification shall be moved from Dec. 30, 2025 to Jan. 30, 2026; 3. The deadline for Lead Plaintiffs to file their reply in support of class certification shall be moved from Jan. 27, 2026 to March 6, 2026. The Parties jointly rescheduled their mediation from Oct. 23, 2025 to Nov. 3, 2025, in light of Defendants' conflict as a result of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit having scheduled an argument in another case on that same date. Meta is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RCSfg0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. Lauren M. Cruz, Esq. John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. Rebecca E. Boon, Esq. Jorge G. Tenreiro, Esq. Aasiya M. Glover, Esq. Mathews R. de Carvalho, Esq. Sarah Schmidt, Esq. Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 819-3470 E-mail: johnr@blbglaw.com rebecca.boon@blbglaw.com jorge.tenreiro@blbglaw.com aasiya.glover@blbglaw.com mathews.decarvalho@blbglaw.com sarah.schmidt@blbglaw.com jonathanu@blbglaw.com - and - Shawn Busken, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OHIO 30 East Broad Street Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (800) 282-0515 E-mail: Shawn.Busken@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov The Defendants are represented by: James P. Rouhandeh, Esq. Charles S. Duggan, Esq. Nikolaus J. Williams, Esq. Paulina Perlin, Esq. Neal A. Potischman, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 450-4000 Facsimile: (212) 701-5800 E-mail: rouhandeh@davispolk.com rouhandeh@davispolk.com charles.duggan@davispolk.com nikolaus.williams@davispolk.com paulina.perlin@davispolk.com neal.potischman@davispolk.com META PLATFORMS: Plaintiff Seeks to File Class Exhibit Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (RE META PIXEL HEALTHCARE LITIGATION), Case No. 3:22-cv-03580-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs' administrative motion to file under seal: Document Portion(s) to Seal Exhibit 3 to the Plaintiffs' motion Highlighted portions for class certification (expert report at Page 64-65, of Zubair Shafiq) Footnote 186; Page 96, Footnote 243. The materials at issue consist of individually identifying health information maintained by Meta pertaining to an absent class member, including the class member’s first and last name, physical address, email address, phone number, gender, and date of birth. Courts within the Ninth Circuit routinely recognize that the need to protect this kind of information and absent class member privacy are compelling reasons justifying sealing. Further, disclosure of the information at issue would not serve the public interest or aid the public in understanding the merits of this case. The absent class member’s identifying information is not relevant for the public to understand the underlying motion. Instead, to the extent it is of interest to members of the public at all, this information could be obtained by bad actors, potentially subjecting the class member to targeted attacks with no meaningful gain in the public’s ability to understand these proceedings. Finally, Plaintiffs’ sealing request is narrowly tailored and no less restrictive alternative is sufficient. Meta is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iP6Ero at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com - and - Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq. KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 E-mail: koncius@kiesel.law - and - Geoffrey Graber, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com - and - Beth E. Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com - and - Andre M. Mura, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: amm@classlawgroup.com META PLATFORMS: Plaintiff Seeks to File Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (RE META PIXEL HEALTHCARE LITIGATION), Case No. 3:22-cv-03580-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion to consider whether another party's materials should be filed under seal: Document Portion(s) to Seal The Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendant Highlighted portions Meta Platforms, Inc.'s motion to seal at 2:4-5, 17-21 and documents in support of Plaintiffs' 3:2-4. motion for class certification Meta is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=69538F at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Esq. An V. Truong, Esq. Eric Steven Johnson, Esq. Jennifer M Paulson, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com atruong@simmonsfirm.com ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com jpaulson@simmonsfirm.com - and - Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq. Nicole Ramirez, Esq. Mahnam Ghorbani, Esq. Kaitlyn E. Fry, Esq. KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 E-mail: koncius@kiesel.law ramirez@kiesel.law ghorbani@kiesel.law fry@kiesel.law - and - Geoffrey Graber, Esq. Eric Alfred Kafka, Esq. Mark Vandenberg, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com ekafka@cohenmilstein.com mvandenberg@cohenmilstein.com - and - Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Amanda M. Steiner, Esq. Benjamin M. Drachler, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com asteiner@terrellmarshall.com bdrachler@terrellmarshall.com - and - Andre M. Mura, Esq. Hanne Jensen, Esq. Delaney Brooks, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: amm@classlawgroup.com hj@classlawgroup.com db@classlawgroup.com METRO ONE: Parties Must Supplement Joint Status Report, Court Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hager v. Metro One Loss Prevention Services Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-05164 (W.D. Wash., Filed Feb. 27, 2025), the Hon. Judge John H. Chun entered an order directing the parties to supplement their Joint Status Report with a proposed filing date and briefing schedule for Plaintiff's motion for class certification. If the parties are unable to agree on any part of the proposed schedule, they may present their positions in separate paragraphs, but no separate pleadings are to be filed. The joint proposal shall be filed within seven days from the date of this order. The nature of suit states Petition for Removal -- Contract Dispute. The Defendant is a private security company founded in 1984 that provides comprehensive security solutions, including uniformed security officers and investigations.[CC] Metro is a security company that provides a range of loss prevention and security guard services. METROPOLITAN LIFE: Fact Discovery in Blackoak Due Feb. 26, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLACKOAK LIFE LIMITED AS GENERAL PARTNER TO BLACKOAK INVESTORS LP, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:25-cv-05749-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Schofield entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order: -- No additional parties may be joined after Nov. 10, 2025, without leave of Court. -- Amended pleadings may be filed without leave of Court until Nov. 10, 2025. -- Initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) shall be completed no later than Sept. 30, 2025. -- All fact discovery shall be completed no later than Feb. 26, 2027. -- All expert discovery shall be completed no later than July 15, 2027. -- By Nov. 21, 2025, and every 45 days thereafter, the parties shall submit joint status letters. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter the dates under paragraphs 5, 6, 8(a), 9(b) and 13(a) (b) into the Court's calendar. Metropolitan offers insurance, annuities, and employee benefits. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KIb6sU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth Ard, Esq. Ryan C. Kirkpatrick, Esq. Zach Savage, Esq. Max Straus, Esq. Steven Sklaver, Esq. Glenn Bridgman, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com zsavage@susmangodfrey.com mstraus@susmangodrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com The Defendant is represented by: Stacey J. Rappaport, Esq. Robert C. Hora, Esq. Jonathan D. Lamberti, Esq. MILBANK LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 530-5000 Facsimile: (212) 530-5219 E-mail: srappaport@milbank.com rhora@milbank.com jlamberti@milbank.com MEXICO MARKET: Faces Pardo Suit Over ADA Violation -------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. SERGIO CARBALLO, DELIA CARBALLO and MEXICO MARKET, INC. D/B/A MEXICO MARKET, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-24773-XXXX (S.D. Fla., October 16, 2025) is a complaint brought by the Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals against the Defendants seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities who uses a wheelchair to ambulate. He is limited in his major life activities by such, including but not limited to walking, standing, grabbing, grasping and pinching. The Plaintiff visited the Defendants' commercial property on June 18, 2025, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA. The complaint alleges that the Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of the Defendants' commercial property and commercial grocery store business located therein. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at these commercial property and grocery store and market, which endangered his safety, adds the complaint. Plaintiff NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Defendants SERGIO CARBALLO and DELIA CARBALLO are the owners of the commercial property that is the subject of this complaint. MEXICO MARKET, INC. D/B/A MEXICO MARKET owned and operated a commercial grocery store that sits within the Carballos' commercial property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Primary E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary E-mail: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Hindlemann Sues Over Stock Price Drop -------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY HINDLEMANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC., JOSEPH M. ZUBRETSKY, and MARK L. KEIM, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-09461 (C.D. Cal., October 3, 2025) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Molina securities between February 5, 2025 and July 23, 2025, inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) material, adverse facts concerning the Company's "medical cost trend assumptions;" (2) that Molina was experiencing a "dislocation between premium rates and medical cost trend;" (3) that Molina's near term growth was dependent on a lack of "utilization of behavioral health, pharmacy, and inpatient and outpatient services;" (4) as a result of the foregoing, Molina's financial guidance for fiscal year 2025 was substantially likely to be cut; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, says the suit. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Molina Healthcare Inc. provides healthcare services to low-income individuals under the Medicaid and Medicare programs and through the U.S. state insurance marketplaces.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com prajesh@glancylaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Newton Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as DeeAnn Newton, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01113 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-08663-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: Pitts Suit Transferred to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ernest Pitts, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01366 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-08664-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: Poffenberger Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jack Poffenberger, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01368 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-08669-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: Ramiro Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Aida Ramiro, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01115 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-08670-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: Renninger Suit Transferred to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Paula Renninger, individually and a representative of the Estate of Jon Gruber, deceased, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01103 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-08671-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: Sampson Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Leonard Sampson, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01116 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-08672-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: Vera Suit Transferred to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Justin Vera, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01369 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-08673-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 MULTI-CRAFT CONTRACTORS: Class Cert Discovery Due Feb. 27, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jackson v. Multi-Craft Contractors, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-03213 (W.D. Mo., Filed Aug. 5, 2025), the Hon. Judge Beth Phillips entered a scheduling order Phase I class certification: -- Discovery due by Feb. 27, 2026. -- Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective and/or class action shall be filed on or before Feb. 27, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Multi-Craft is a full-service MEP (mechanical, electrical, plumbing) contractor.[CC] NAILS CLUB: Faces Perez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------ ESTHER CARDOSO PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAILS CLUB VII INC d/b/a NAILS CLUB, NGHIEM QUACH and KIM SANG LE, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-05708 (E.D.N.Y., October 10, 2025) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay proper minimum and overtime wages, failure to pay spread of hours compensation, failure to provide with a written wage notice, and failure to furnish wage statements. Plaintiff Perez, residing in Nassau, New York, was employed by the Defendants as a nail technician, manicurist, pedicurist and cleaner, while performing other miscellaneous duties, from March 2019 until July 2025, with the exception of approximately April 2020 to August 5, 2020, where Plaintiff did not perform work for the Defendants due to the COVID pandemic. Nails Club VII Inc. operates as Nails Club in Elmont, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 NATUROPATHICA HOLISTIC: Seeks to Stay Discovery & Class Cert ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALIANA EL SAYED, Individually and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, v. NATUROPATHICA HOLISTIC HEALTH INC and CATHERINE M. O'BRIEN A/KA CATHERINE M. O'BRIEN-YAFFA, Case No. 8:25-cv-00846-SDM-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for stay of discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(c) and a stay of class action briefing, pending this Court's ruling on the Defendant's amended motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. The Plaintiff filed her First Amended Class Action Complaint on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, which purports to assert a cause of action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Naturopathica provides holistic wellness solutions and spa experiences. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JBTckC at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Garrett L. Roberts, Esq. ZUMPANO CASTRO, PLLC 617 Lumsden Rd. Brandon, FL 33511 Telephone: (813) 344-3090 E-mail: Garrett.Roberts@ZumpanoCastro.com Nikki.Marrero@ZumpanoCastro.com NEOGEN CORPORATION: Faces Shareholder Suit over 3M Business Sale ---------------------------------------------------------------- Neogen Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 9, 2025, that on August 27, 2025, the company, John Adent, Steven J. Quinlan, James C. Borel, William T. Boehm, Ronald D. Green, Ralph A. Rodriguez, James P. Tobin, Darci L. Vetter, and Catherine E. Woteki were named in a putative class action filed in Minnesota's Second Judicial District for Ramsey County. The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegedly false and misleading public statements by defendants in the offering materials issued in connection with the 2022 transaction in which Neogen acquired 3M's Food Safety Business. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages, reasonable costs and expenses, recission, and/or such other equitable or injunctive relief as deemed appropriate by the court. Defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. Neogen Corporation and subsidiaries develop, manufacture and market a diverse line of products and services dedicated to food and animal safety. NESTLE HEALTH: "Nutritional Drink" Labels Deceptive, Testori Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC TESTORI, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NESTLE HEALTH SCIENCE US HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01318-CDB (E.D. Cal., October 6, 2025) is a class action against Defendant to seek redress for its alleged unlawful and deceptive practices in labeling and marketing the Carnation Breakfast Essentials Nutritional Drink Classic French Vanilla. The Plaintiff asserts that the product is prominently marketed as a "nutritional drink" and highlights its 10g of protein per serving, while concealing that the first ingredients are water and glucose -- meaning it is composed primarily of sugar and water, rather than protein. The Defendant emphasizes the product's protein content and positions it as "Breakfast Essentials," leading consumers to reasonably expect that the product delivers balanced nutrition suitable as a breakfast replacement. Had they known the truth -- that the product was primarily water and sugar, delivering nearly one-quarter of the daily limit for added sugar in a single serving -- the Plaintiff and other consumers would not have purchased it, or would have paid significantly less, says the suit. Nestle Health Science US Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation doing business in the United States and the state of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. Potter, Esq. James M. Treglio, Esq. Cara Townsend, Esq. Isabel Rose Masanque, Esq. Bree Durso, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 1410 E Winding Way, Suite B Friendswood, TX 77546 Telephone: (415) 534-0530 Facsimile: (888) 422-5191 E-mail: Mark@trtl.law JimT@trtl.law CaraT@trtl.law IsabelM@trtl.law BreeDurso@trtl.law NESTLE HEALTH: Testori Balks at Deceptive Nutritional Drinks ------------------------------------------------------------ ERIC TESTORI, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NESTLE HEALTH SCIENCE US HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-at-00905 (E.D. Cal., October 6, 2025) is a class action against Defendant to seek redress for its alleged unlawful and deceptive practices in labeling and marketing the Carnation Breakfast Essentials Nutritional Drink Classic French Vanilla in violation of the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff asserts that the product is prominently marketed as a "nutritional drink" and highlights its 10g of protein per serving, while concealing that the first ingredients are water and glucose -- meaning it is composed primarily of sugar and water, rather than protein. The Defendant emphasizes the product's protein content and positions it as "Breakfast Essentials," leading consumers to reasonably expect that the product delivers balanced nutrition suitable as a breakfast replacement. Had they known the truth -- that the product was primarily water and sugar, delivering nearly one-quarter of the daily limit for added sugar in a single serving -- the Plaintiff and other consumers would not have purchased it, or would have paid significantly less, says the suit. Nestle Health Science US Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation doing business in the United States and the state of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. Potter, Esq. James M. Treglio, Esq. Cara Townsend, Esq. Isabel Rose Masanque, Esq. Bree Durso, Esq. POTTER HANDY LLP 1410 E Winding Way, Suite B Friendswood, TX 77546 Telephone: (415) 534-0530 Facsimile: (888) 422-5191 E-mail: Mark@trtl.law JimT@trtl.law CaraT@trtl.law IsabelM@trtl.law BreeDurso@trtl.law NEW YORK COMMUNITY: Class Settlement in Sapozhnikov Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE SAPOZHNIKOV and US REALTY GROUP LLC, on behalf of themselves individually and all others similarly situated, v. NEW YORK COMMUNITY BANK, Case No. 2:23-cv-01609-KAM-SIL (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto entered an order preliminarily approving class action settlement and certifying settlement classes: 1. The Court finds that it will likely certify at the final approval stage the Settlement Classes for purposes of the Settlement only, consisting of: The Multiple Fees Settlement Class, defined as "All NYCB Accountholders who were charged two or more NSF Fees or OD Fees on the same ACH transaction or check during the Multiple Fees Class Period of March 2, 2017 through Jan. 1, 2020." The OON Fee Settlement Class, defined as: "All NYCB Accountholders who were charged more than one out- of-network ATM fee when checking their balance in conjunction with a cash withdrawal at an out-of-network ATM during the OON Fee Class Period from Aug. 20, 2020 through Feb. 20, 2024." 2. Excluded from the Settlement Classes is NYCB, its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors, all Settlement Class members who make a timely election to opt- out, and all judges assigned to this litigation and their immediate family members. 3. The Multiple Fees Class Period is March 2, 2017 through Jan. 1, 2020. The OON Fee Class Period is Aug. 20, 2020 through Feb. 20, 2024. 4. A Final Approval Hearing will be held in the Courtroom of The Honorable Kiyo A. Matsumoto, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Courtroom 6B South, Brooklyn, New York 11201 on Jan. 13, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. NYCB is a financial services provider operated by Flagstar Bank N.A. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hRRZSo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, Ste 122 Oakland, CA 94609 E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com - and - James J. Bilsborrow, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLY PLLC 500 President Clinton Ave., Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE: Toolan Sues Over Unlawful Insurance Cost ----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Toolan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE AND ANNUITY CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-08457 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2025), is brought seeks to represent a class of policyholders who have been forced to pay unlawful and excessive cost of insurance ("COI") charges imposed by New York Life. Universal life policies are variable rate contracts. Unlike term or whole life policies, whose premiums are generally fixed and disclosed in advance, universal life policies have separate policy charges that are determined on an ongoing, prospective basis. In late 2017, however, Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which, among other things, reduced the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%. This was a boon for life insurance companies like New York Life. The passage of the TCJA, which New York Life acknowledges in its reporting "significantly changed U.S. tax laws," should have led to a significant reduction in COI rates for New York Life's universal life policies. Under a 35% tax rate, an insurer like New York would have to earn pre-tax profits of roughly $154 million to realize an after-tax profit of $100 million. This violates the COI rate provision in Plaintiff's contract with New York Life, which requires that the COI rates used to calculate monthly COI charges "will be based on future expectations for investment income, mortality, persistency, taxes and expenses" and that "the actual rate will be set by us, in advance, at least once a year." This means that if New York Life's expectations as federal income tax expense improve (that is, if it expects future tax expenses to decline), New York Life must adjust its COI rates downward to reflect the improvement. Yet since the TCJA took effect, New York Life has continued to set, change, and charge rates that do not reflect in any way its reduced tax expectations or the additional profits that it is generating as a result of the TCJA. As a result of that first wave of COI litigation, many insurers changed their policy forms to expressly state that COI rates will also be based on taxes. New York Life is one of those insurers. Yet now that tax rates have dramatically improved, New York Life has pretended as if its expectations have not changed at all—while simultaneously telling their stakeholders how much more money they have made and will continue to make from lower tax rates, says the complaint. The Plaintiff owns a universal life policy issued by New York Life on September 13, 2011 as policy number 61136972. New York Life issues universal life policies throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth Ard, Esq. Ryan C. Kirkpatrick, Esq. Ari Ruben, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. One Manhattan West, 50th Floor New York, NY 10001 Phone: 212-336-8330 Facsimile: 212-336-8340 Email: sard@susmangodfrey.com rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com aruben@susmangodfrey.com - and - Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Glenn C. Bridgman, Esq. Halley Josephs, Esq. Kimberly C. Page, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Phone: 310-789-3100 Facsimile: 310-789-3150 Email: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com hjosephs@susmangodfrey.com kpage@susmangodfrey.com NEW YORK: Bid for More Time to File Class Response OK'd ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dunn, et al., v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Case No. 9:25-cv-01242 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Sept. 8, 2025), the Hon. Judge Mae A D'Agostino entered an order granting the Defendants' request for an extension of time to respond to the Dunn complaint. The Defendants' response shall be filed by October 31, 2025. Counsel should direct any requests to hold the motion for class certification in abeyance pending the filing of a response to the complaint to the District Judge. New York is responsible for providing effective and efficient correctional programs in New York State.[CC] NEWELL BRANDS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Oster Ovens ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Monica Corbett filed a class action lawsuit against Newell Brands Inc., doing business as Sunbeam Products. Why: Corbett claims Newell Brands knowingly sold Oster French Door Countertop Ovens with a dangerous defect. Where: The Sunbeam class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. A new class action lawsuit claims Sunbeam Products sold Oster French Door Countertop Ovens containing a dangerous defect that can cause the doors to unexpectedly close, posing a serious burn hazard. Plaintiff Monica Corbett claims Sunbeam failed to disclose that the Oster ovens, which retail for between $140 and $250, have a design defect that can cause the doors to slam shut and pose a burn hazard for users. Corbett alleges the company failed to warn consumers about the risk, even though the ovens had been subject to previous recalls. Corbett wants to represent a nationwide class and New York subclass of consumers who purchased a Sunbeam Oster French Door Countertop Oven for personal or household use within any applicable limitations period. The Sunbeam class action lawsuit accuses the company of violating New York General Business Law and unjust enrichment. Oster ovens recalled but remedy insufficient, class action says Corbett argues the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a recall of approximately 1.29 million Oster French Door Countertop Ovens on Sept. 25, 2025, due to the burn hazard. The recall covered models TSSTTVFDXL, TSSTTVFDDG, TSSTTVFDMAF and TSSTTVFDDAF, which were sold nationwide from August 2015 through July 2025, according to the lawsuit. Corbett claims Sunbeam was aware of the defect through publicly posted consumer reviews well before the Oster recall. She says she purchased her Oster oven from Amazon and later received a recall notice letter from the retailer. Corbett alleges she was burned by the Oster oven when its door snapped shut. She says she has experienced hazardous incidents with the oven and remains concerned it could burn her again. The Sunbeam class action lawsuit asserts that the repair kit provided by Sunbeam during the recall is not sufficient to safeguard consumers from the risk of injury. Corbett is seeking class certification, compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution and a court-supervised repair and corrective-notice program for all Oster ovens with the defect. The plaintiff is represented by Mark S. Reich and Michael N. Pollack of Levi & Korsinsky LLP. The Sunbeam class action lawsuit is Corbett v. Newell Brands Inc. d/b/a Sunbeam Products Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-05616, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. [GN] NIKOLA CORPORATION: Faces Shareholder Suit over SEC Disclosures --------------------------------------------------------------- Nikola Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 9, 2025, that the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors are defendants in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court of the District of Arizona. On December 15, 2020, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona consolidated the actions under lead case "Borteanu v. Nikola Corporation, et al.," No. CV-20-01797-PXL-SPL, and appointed Angelo Baio as the lead plaintiff. On December 30, 2020, a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the court's lead plaintiff order and directing the court to appoint another plaintiff was filed before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 20-73819. On July 23, 2021, the Ninth Circuit granted in part the mandamus petition, vacated the district court's December 15, 2020 order, and remanded the case to the District Court to reevaluate the appointment of a Lead Plaintiff. On November 18, 2021, the court appointed Nikola Investor Group II as Lead Plaintiff. On January 24, 2022, lead plaintiff filed the consolidated amended class action complaint which asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false and/or misleading statements and omissions in press releases, public filings, and in social media regarding the company's business plan and prospects. On April 8, 2022, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint. On February 2, 2023, the court issued a ruling granting the defendants' motions to dismiss, without prejudice. As a result, plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed in its entirety, with leave to amend by April 3, 2023. On April 3, 2023, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended class action complaint. Defendants filed their motions to dismiss it on May 15, 2023. On December 8, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss where on January 26, 2024, the company answered. On February 23, 2024, the parties exchanged initial disclosures. On May 17, 2024, lead plaintiff moved for class certification. On August 19, 2024, defendants filed an opposition to the motion for class certification, and a motion to exclude the plaintiff's expert's testimony. Briefing on defendants' motion to exclude concluded on September 30, 2024. On October 1, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed a reply in further support of their motion for class certification. On October 25, 2024, defendants moved for leave to file a sur-reply in response to plaintiff's reply. The motions are currently pending. Nikola operates in two business units, truck and energy. The former commercializes hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles and battery electric vehicles Class 8 trucks while the latter develops hydrogen fueling infrastructure to support the truck business. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Iwan Sues Over Defective Vehicles ------------------------------------------------------- Noah Iwan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., and NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD., Case No. 3:25-cv-01183 (M.D. Tenn., Oct. 13, 2025), is brought against the Defendant by Plaintiff individually and on behalf of a class of current and former owners and lessees of model year 2022 and 2023 Nissan Pathfinder vehicles ("Class Vehicles" or "Vehicles"), as a result of the rear braking systems and rear brake pads in the Class Vehicles being defective, in violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and, in the alternative. The defect causes excessive rear brake pad wear with ordinary vehicle use that results in premature brake pad degradation ("Defect"). This compromises the Vehicles' braking systems and results in costly repairs. Due to the Defect, the brake pads and braking systems in the Class Vehicles routinely experience issues and fail before the expiration of the parts' expected lifespan. They also frequently fail within the Class Vehicles' 3 year/36,000 mile manufacturer warranty. Nevertheless, consumers report that Nissan fails to replace worn brake pads or otherwise repair the prematurely failed braking systems in the Class Vehicles under warranty, and instead charges owners and lessees large sums of money to replace brake pads, claiming it is ordinary wear and tear. Nissan failed to disclose this material information to consumers despite knowing about the Defect. It has long known of the Defect from, inter alia, internal warranty and repair records submitted directly to it and to its authorized dealers, complaints collected by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration ("NHTSA"), and consumer complaints on other message boards. Nissan also knew about the Defect based upon its own rigorous and extensive pre-sale testing of the Vehicles, which replicates actual consumer use of the Vehicles and their braking systems (including engaging the brake pads). Because of the ubiquitous nature of the Defect in Class Vehicles, Nissan's pre-sale testing would have necessarily revealed the Defect. Despite its pre-sale, superior knowledge of the Defect and the ancillary safety issues that it can cause, Nissan has failed to fix the Defect and provide an adequate repair or recall the Class Vehicles in a manner that would adequately address it. Instead, Nissan failed to disclose, and actively concealed, the Defect from the public, and continues to withhold this material information while reaping the benefit of revenues generated from repair and replacement services necessitated by premature brake pad failure, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a used 2023 Nissan Pathfinder--Rock Creek edition--from Old Orchard Nissan. Nissan North America, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business located in Franklin, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Spragens, Esq. SPRAGENS LAW PLC 915 Rep. John Lewis Way S., Suite 100 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 983-8900 Fax: (615) 682-8533 Email: john@spragenslaw.com - and - Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq. SHUB JOHNS & HOLBROOK LLP Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (610) 477-8380 Email: bjohns@shublawyers.com sholbrook@shublawyers.com O'REILLY AUTO: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Jan. 9, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOAH MCMILLON and JOHN PLUMLEE, behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC, O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES, INC and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-00711-CAB-SBC (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying the scheduling order as follows: (a) That the deadline to file the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification be continued by 60 days, from Nov. 7, 2025, to Jan. 9, 2026; (b) That the Defendants be afforded a period of 60 days to file their opposition to the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for class certification, such that any opposition shall be due on or before March 10, 2026; and (c) That the Plaintiffs be afforded a period of 30 days to file their reply briefing in further support of their motion for class certification, such that any reply shall be due on or before April 9, 2026. Deadline / Action Proposed Date Fact Discovery Deadline: April 16, 2026 Expert List Due: May 14, 2026 Supplemental Expert List Due: May 28, 2026 Expert Disclosures: June 25, 2026 Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: July 9, 2026 Expert Discovery Deadline: Aug. 6, 2026 Pre-Trial Motion Deadline: Sept. 3, 2026 Daubert Motion Deadline: Sept. 3, 2026 O'Reilly owns and operates retail auto parts stores. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=orltLZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq. Lauren N. Vega, Esq. FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC. Xavier L. Woodford 3333 Camino del Rio South, Suite 300 4 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 693-7727 Facsimile: (619) 350-6855 E-mail: nick@ferrarovega.com lauren@ferrarovega.com xavier@ferrarovega.com The Defendants are represented by: James M. Peterson, Esq. Edwin M. Boniske, Esq. HIGGS FLETCHER & MACK LLP 401 West A Street, Suite 2600 San Diego, CA 92101-7910 Telephone: (619) 236-1551 Facsimile: (619) 696-1410 E-mail: peterson@higgslaw.com boniske@higgslaw.com ONEAZ CREDIT: Parties in Carranza Seek to Stay Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Deyra Pamela Carranza Aguilar, v. OneAZ Credit Union, Case No. 2:24-cv-02657-SHD (D. Ariz.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting a 30 day stay on all deadlines or the Plaintiff a 30-day extension to submit motion for class certification in the alternative. The parties stipulate to a 30-day stay of all deadlines to accommodate settlement discussions. The parties have had detailed settlement discussions and are working on reaching a settlement in principle. There are some complicated contractual issues that the parties must work through while the Defendant requires additional time to respond to Plaintiff's interrogatories due to technological limitations in obtaining the requested information. The Plaintiff has been unable to work on the motion for class certification without those responses. The Parties ultimately believe that they are also within bargaining range and that a stay would preserve resources without unduly delaying proceedings. OneAZ is a federally insured natural person credit union. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C0hnMK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Saenz, Esq. Eduardo Casas, Esq. MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 E-mail: tsaenz@maldef.org ecasas@maldef.org - and - Daniel R. Ortega, Jr., Esq. ORTEGA LAW FIRM, P.C. 361 East Coronado Road, Ste. 101 Phoenix, AZ 85004 E-mail: danny@ortegalaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Jill J. Ormond, Esq. Shawn J. Alves, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 794-2491 E-mail: jormond@grsm.com salves@grsm.com OPENAI INC: Bid to Compel Plaintiffs' Depositions in Alter Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alter et al v. OpenAI Inc. et al. (RE: OPENAI, INC., COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION), Case No. 1:23-cv-10211-SHS-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ona T. Wang entered an order denying OpenAI's motion to compel limited three-hour depositions of Former Plaintiffs. Accordingly, because OpenAI has failed to make a strong showing that depositions of Former Plaintiffs are narrowly tailored and not available from a party. However, given that the discovery that OpenAI seeks may be relevant to OpenAI's defenses and class certification, this order does not preclude OpenAI from seeking such discovery through other less intrusive discovery means. OpenAI fails to explain why Mr. Diaz's state of mind testimony is so unique and unavailable from other named class plaintiffs such that a deposition of an absent class member is appropriate and narrowly tailored. Regarding Ms. Silverman’s statements about OpenAI, ChatGPT, and this lawsuit specifically, OpenAI fails to identify what information Ms. Silverman would testify about that is unique to her and unavailable from any of the named class plaintiffs such that a deposition of an absent class member is appropriate. Accordingly, OpenAI has failed to make the required strong showing that a deposition of Mr. Winchester is narrowly tailored and not available from a party. OpenAI operates as an AI research and deployment company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jGgLcc at no extra charge.[CC] OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Claims in LCG Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Liberty Capital Group, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-04822-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Rakoff entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the putative class action complaint. Oppenheimer Holdings Inc, and Oppenheimer Asset Management Inc. from the litigation are dismissed from the litigation; Liberty's claims for negligence, negligent misrepresentations and omissions, and unjust enrichment are dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend; and Defendants' motion to dismiss is otherwise denied but subject to the limitations set forth above. If Liberty files an amended complaint, further motion practice regarding the face of the complaint may be permitted, but discovery will still proceed. In any event, the parties should jointly call Chambers on Oct. 15, 2025 at 12 noon to discuss further scheduling. In that regard, the Court will hold a hearing on class certification at 2:00 p.m. on Nov. 21, 2025. Oppenheimer is an American multinational independent investment bank and financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ngAvgY at no extra charge.[CC] OPW FUELING: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response in Solis ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ESTRELLA SOLIS, on behalf of the Estate of Narciso Solis and all others similarly situated, v. OPW Fueling Components, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00562-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending deadline to respond to the Plaintiff's conditional certification motion through Nov. 22, 2025. The Defendant designs and manufactures fueling equipment. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a9OW1L at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: David I. Klass, Esq. Nicholas Hulse, Esq. Sharon Suh, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 227 West Trade Street, Suite 2020 Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 334-4565 Facsimile: (704) 334-9774 E-mail: dklass@fisherphillips.com nhulse@fisherphillips.com ssuh@fisherphillips.com PAMELA BONDI: Court Stays Graham Class Suit ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNARD GRAHAM, v. PAMELA J. BONDI, Case No. 1:24-cv-02611-CRC (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Cooper entered an order granting the Defendant's motion for a stay. The Court further entered an order that, within 60 days of this Order and every 60 days thereafter, the parties shall file a joint status report informing the Court of the status of the pending appeals of the administrative class action settlement in Hedgepeth v. Garland, Case No. 570-2016 00501X. Bernard Graham served in the United States Marshals Service for thirty years. During that time, he filed an administrative complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that the Marshals Service discriminated against him on the basis of race. His claim was ultimately subsumed into an EEOC class complaint that brought similar claims of race discrimination against the Marshals Service. The class agents and the Marshals Service agreed to settle the class complaint, and an EEOC Administrative Judge approved the settlement -- over Graham’s objection -- in June 2024. However, the settlement will not take effect until the agency’s Office of Federal Operations resolves two pending appeals and issues a final approval. Pamela Bondi is an American attorney, lobbyist, and politician. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mbmZjc at no extra charge.[CC] PATH: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PATH. The case is styled as Edith Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. PATH, Case No. 25STCV29982 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 13, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." PATH -- https://www.path.org/ -- are a global team of innovators working to accelerate health equity so all people and communities can thrive.[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 PILLOW COLLECTION: Ford Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA FORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Pillow Collection, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12099 (N.D. Ill., October 3, 2025) is a civil rights action against The Pillow Collection for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://thepillowcollection.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 August 26, 2025, the Plaintiff searched Google for online stores selling a bolster pillow and came across the Defendant's website. However, as she tried to navigate the website and complete her purchase, she encountered accessibility barriers that significantly hindered her progress. Specifically, an automatic pop-up appeared on the screen, interrupting her browsing experience. In addition, when the sub-menu received focus, it expanded automatically, forcing her to navigate through every sub-menu item. Due to these accessibility issues, the Plaintiff was unable to browse the website effectively using her screen reading software and was ultimately prevented from completing the purchase of her desired product, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in The Pillow Collection'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. The Pillow Collection, Inc. operates the website that offers a variety of pillows, including throw, bolster, seat cushions, lumbar, and neckroll styles.[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 PREMIER CONNECTIONS: Burke Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled CHERIE BURKE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PREMIER CONNECTIONS LLC, a foreign Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25-2-11453-3, was removed from the Superior Court of Washington, County of Pierce, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on October 10, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05918 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff seeks to bring this class action on behalf of all individuals who, from January 1, 2023 through the present, applied for a job opening in the State of Washington with Defendant where the job posting did not disclose the wage scale or salary range for the position, or a general description of all of the benefits and other compensation to be offered to the hired applicant in violation of RCW 49.58.110. Premier Connections LLC is an in-store product demonstration company.[BN] Defendant Premier Connections is represented by: Jonah O. Harrison, Esq. Denise L. Ashbaugh, Esq. Jeremy E. Roller, Esq. ARETE LAW GROUP PLLC 600 University Street, Suite 2420 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 428-3250 Facsimile: (206) 428-3251 E-mail: jharrison@aretelaw.com dashbaugh@aretelaw.com jroller@aretelaw.com PROFESSIONAL FINANCE: Class Settlement in Rodriguez Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARITZA RODRIGUEZ, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PROFESSIONAL FINANCE COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01679-RMR-STV (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Regina M. Rodriguez entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of the class action settlement. The Court further entered an order that judgment is entered dismissing the case with prejudice. The case will be closed. Pursuant to the Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement of Judge Regina M. Rodriguez entered on May 7, 2025. Professional is a debt collection agency that works on behalf of creditors to recover unpaid debts. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6OM7R3 at no extra charge.[CC] QUINCY BIOSCIENCE HOLDING: Hudis Files Suit in E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quincy Bioscience Holding Company, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Louise Hudis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Quincy Bioscience Holding Company, Inc., Quincy Bioscience, LLC; Prevagen, Inc. Doing business as: Sugar River Supplements; Quincy Bioscience Manufacturing, LLC; Mark Underwood, individually and as an officer of Quincy Bioscience Holding Company, Inc., Quincy Bioscience, LLC, and Prevagen Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01357-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal., Oct. 13, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Quincy Bioscience -- https://quincybioscience.com/ -- is a biotechnology company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of novel technologies to support cognitive function and other normal health challenges associated with aging.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ling Y. Kuang, Esq. Michael McShane, Esq. Thom E. Smith, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415) 568-2555 Fax: (415) 568-2556 Email: lkuang@audetlaw.com mmcshane@audetlaw.com tsmith@audetlaw.com QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Marketing -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Adams, writing for About Lawsuits, reports that a California woman has filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Prevagen does not protect the brain against Alzheimer's, dementia or other forms of memory loss, despite the manufacturers' claims. Prevagen is an unregulated dietary supplement that contains apoaequorin, a protein originally derived from jellyfish. While it has not been linked to any known health risks, the product is marketed as a way to protect brain cells and improve memory in older adults, claims that researchers say lack credible scientific support. As a result, a number of Prevagen lawsuits have been filed over the past decade, accusing the manufacturer of deceptive marketing and profiting from misleading health claims. In a recently filed complaint brought in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on October 13, Louise Hudis claims that Quincy Bioscience Holding Inc. and various related entities, including Prevagen Inc. and company CEO Mark Underwood, have deceived consumers with false statements about Prevagen's benefits. The lawsuit claims Prevagen has long been marketed with promises of improved memory, sharper thinking and better brain function, despite scientific evidence showing the supplement provides none of those benefits. Hudis says Quincy Bioscience targeted older adults worried about cognitive decline, using television and online ads with slogans such as "Healthier Brain. Better Life." and "Clinically Tested," and charging up to $60 per month for a product that costs pennies to make. She contends those claims are impossible because Quincy's own filings with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) acknowledge that apoaequorin is digested in the stomach and broken down into amino acids before reaching the brain. As a result, the lawsuit argues that it cannot cross the blood-brain barrier or affect brain chemistry, making Prevagen no more effective than an ordinary dietary protein. The complaint also cites the Madison Memory Study, which Quincy often references in its marketing as evidence that Prevagen improves memory. Hudis alleges the 2016 study was deeply flawed, unregistered, and conducted by staff with no clinical research experience. The study found no statistically significant benefit compared to placebo, and Hudis claims Quincy later performed improper post-hoc data mining to fabricate positive results. In addition, Hudis contends that federal regulators have repeatedly challenged the company's claims, with the FDA sending Quincy a warning letter in 2012 for marketing Prevagen as an unapproved drug, while in 2024, a federal court in New York issued an injunction prohibiting deceptive "brain health" advertising. Despite this, Hudis says the company continued to make similar claims in modified form. The lawsuit also highlights internal records and testimony showing that company CEO Mark Underwood personally approved labeling and ad campaigns, even though he allegedly knew Prevagen's claims were scientifically impossible. "The purported connection between Defendants' synthetic apoaequorin and brain health is the byproduct of a scientific misnomer that came to its creator, Defendant Mark Underwood, in what he claims was an epiphany. In fact, how Underwood and Quincy arrived at apoaequorin as a supplement that purportedly provides brain health benefits is a tortured tale that itself demonstrates that Underwood and Quincy merely searched for a use of cheaply made synthetic apoaequorin so that they could make millions off of unsuspecting consumers." — Louise Hudis v. Quincy Bioscience Holding Inc. et al Hudis raises allegations of unjust enrichment, as well as violations of the California Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. The lawsuit seeks class action status, with a subclass for California consumers, and requests restitution, recovery of profits, damages, and a court order barring further false advertising while requiring a corrective campaign. Prevagen MDL Motions This is not the first time Prevagen has been accused of false advertising. A motion to consolidate four Prevagen lawsuits into a single MDL, or multidistrict district litigation, was originally brought in 2017. However, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) denied the motion in May of that year, due to there being too few cases and the common factual issues not being unusually complex. A second attempt to consolidate the federal litigation was filed in January 2020. That motion was denied on similar grounds, with the JPML ruling that formal centralization was still not necessary. Despite these decisions from the JPML, litigation against Prevagen and its manufacturer continues in individual courts, including private consumer class-action lawsuits like Hudis's, as well as actions brought by government regulators. In one instance, a long-running case brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and New York Attorney General ended in late 2024, with the presiding court issuing an order prohibiting Quincy Bioscience from making unsupported memory improvement claims. Hudis references this case in her lawsuit. [GN] RECKITT BENCKISER: Mislabels Brain Health Supplements, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DOMINIQUE TIMMONS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RECKITT BENCKISER LLC and RB HEALTH (US) LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-12192 (N.D. Ill., October 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The Defendants manufacture, market, sell, and distribute purported brain health supplements under the brand name Nueriva -- Neuriva Original, Neuriva Original Strawberry Gummies, Neuriva Plus, Neuriva Plus Strawberry Gummies, and Neuriva Ultra. According to the complaint, the Defendants represent on all of the products' front labeling as well as on their web site that these two ingredients help one's memory, focus, concentration, learning, and accuracy. These brain health/performance representations are false, misleading or deceptive as experts in the field deem that the two main active ingredients -- soy-derived phosphatidylserine and coffee cherry extract -- in combination or alone cannot and do not provide any of the represented brain health/performance benefits. The Defendants' deceptive acts proximately caused actual injury and damage to Plaintiff and the Class, alleges the suit. Reckitt Benckhiser LLC and RB Health are Delaware corporations with their principal places of business located in Parsippany, New Jersey. Their corporate parent is a British multinational company traded on the London Stock Exchange that reported net revenue of over GBP12.8 billion in 2019 alone. Its brand portfolio includes, among others, Mucinex, Clearasil, Lysol, Air Wick, and Woolite.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven A. Hart, Esq. Stewart M. Weltman, Esq. HART MCLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE One South Dearborn, Suite 1400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 955-0545 E-mail: shart@hmelegal.com sweltman@hmelegal.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut St., Ste. 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Charles LaDuca, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Ste. 200 Washington, D.C. 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com - and - Michael McShane, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS LLP 711 Van Ness Ave., Ste. 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 568-2555 E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com RED DRESS BOUTIQUE: Scott Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Red Dress Boutique, Inc. The case is styled as Jayanna Scott, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. The Red Dress Boutique, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01355-BAM (E.D. Cal., Oct. 13, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Red Dress Boutique -- https://www.reddress.com/ -- is a women's clothing store located in Athens, Georgia which also sells retail online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com RETINA GROUP: Freedman Alleges Failure to Secure Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- ARTHUR FREEDMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RETINA GROUP OF FLORIDA, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-61993 (S.D. Fla., October 3, 2025) is a class action against RGOF for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated RGOF patients' personally identifiable information and protected health information from criminal hackers. Based on the notice sent to Plaintiff and Class Members, unusual activity was detected on some of its computer systems. In response, the Defendant began an investigation which revealed that an unauthorized party had access to certain files that contained sensitive patient information, and that such access took place between November 6 and November 9, 2024. Yet, RGOF waited 10 months to notify the public that they were at risk. As a result of this delayed response, the Plaintiff and Class Members had no idea for 10 months that their private information had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes, assets the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was accessed and/or compromised during the data breach. Retina Group of Florida, based in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, is a ophthalmology practice that serves more than 22 treatment centers in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Wallace, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 20200 West Dixie Highway, Suite 902 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (888) 747-4529 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 E-mail: jwallace@sirillp.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Neil P. Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com nwilliams@sirillp.com REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Conditional Cert Bid Filing Due March 11, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALYSON BREITZMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. REYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS, LLC, and REYNOLDS PRESTO PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01118-BBC (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Byron B. Conway entered a scheduling order as follows: -- The court adopts the parties' Joint Rule 26(f) Conference Report. -- Initial disclosures are to be exchanged between the parties no later than Nov. 12, 2025, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). -- Amendments to the pleadings are due no later than Nov. 12, 2025. -- The Plaintiff will file a motion for conditional certification under the FLSA on or before March 11, 2026. Final certification, class certification, and decertification motions are due by Aug. 26, 2026. -- In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, parties' primary expert witness disclosure is due no later than April 22, 2026, and rebuttal expert witness disclosure is due no later than June 3, 2026. -- All fact and expert discovery in this case is to be completed no later than Jan. 27, 2027. -- Motions for summary judgment must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Civil L.R. 7 and shall be served and filed no later than Feb. 26, 2027. Reynolds provides cooking, cleanup, storage solutions, paper, plastic wrap, oven bags, plates, cups, and other household products. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pHJBUA at no extra charge.[CC] RUGSUSA LLC: Filing for Class Cert. in Hong Suit Due Feb. 3, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNA HONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RUGSUSA, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-08799-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an order granting Rugsusa's unopposed motion to amend scheduling order to extend class certification briefing schedule: Event Deadline Close of discovery on issues related to Jan. 22, 2026 class certification: Motion for class certification: Feb. 3, 2026 Opposition to motion for class March 31, 2026 Certification: Reply in support of motion for class May 26, 2026 Certification: Last day to file certification Daubert June 9, 2026 motion(s): Last day to file Daubert opposition(s): July 14, 2026 Last day to file Daubert reply brief(s): July 28, 2026 Hearing on class certification motion: Sept. 10, 2026 Rugsusa provides flooring products. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=35oF35 at no extra charge.[CC] SAMPSON BLADEN: Gbete Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEANNE LYLIANE GBETE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SAMPSON BLADEN OIL COMPANY, INC. D/B/A HAN-DEE HUGO'S, Case No. 5:23-cv-00355-BO-KS (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting certification of a class action under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) for the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act claims with the following class definitions: Proposed Misclassified Store Manager Class: "All individuals who were, are, or will be employed at the Defendant SBOC or Han-Dee Hugo's North Carolina gas stations and/or convenience stores who worked as store managers or in similar positions within the past two (2) years preceding June 26, 2023 through the date of judgment or final disposition in this action, who were mis-classified as salaried, overtime- exempt, because they had no hiring/firing authority or were subject to deductions for short days worked thereby treated as hourly employees, during at least one (1) workweek within two (2) years prior to the commencement of this action, through the present." Proposed Overtime Shaving Class (Misclassified Store Managers): "All individuals who were, are, or will be employed at Defendant SBOC or Han-Dee Hugo's North Carolina gas stations and/or convenience stores who worked as store managers or in similar positions within the past two (2) years preceding June 26, 2023 through the date of judgment or final disposition in this action, who were misclassified as salaried overtime exempt because they had no hiring/firing authority or were subject to deductions for short days worked thereby treated as hourly employees, and time records through February 2022 demonstrate they worked in excess of 40 hours per week but pay records demonstrate they were not paid earned and accruing promised overtime wages consistent with the Defendant's handbook (for non-exempt hourly employees) during at least one (1) workweek within two (2) years prior to the commencement of this action, through the present." Proposed Overtime Off the Clock ("OTC") Class (Misclassified Store Managers): "All individuals who were, are, or will be employed at Defendant SBOC or Han-Dee Hugo's North Carolina gas stations and/or convenience stores who worked as store managers within the past two (2) years preceding June 26, 2023 through the date of judgment or final disposition in this action, who were misclassified as salaried overtime exempt because they had no hiring/firing authority or were subject to deductions for short days worked thereby treated as hourly employees, and who work(ed) a minimum of 45 hours per week consistent with the Defendant's handbook but were/are not allowed to clock in and clock out to report their actual hours worked post-February 2022 and thus not paid their earned and accruing promised overtime wages consistent with the Defendant's handbook during at least one (1) workweek within two (2) years prior to the commencement of this action, through the present." Proposed Straight-Time Shaving Class (Misclassified Store Managers): "All individuals who were, are, or will be employed at Defendant SBOC or Han-Dee Hugo's North Carolina gas stations and/or convenience stores who worked as store managers within the past two (2) years preceding June 26, 2023 through the date of judgment or final disposition in this action, who were misclassified as salaried overtime exempt because they had no hiring/firing authority or were subject to deductions for short days worked thereby treated as hourly employees, and during pre and post February 2022, pay records demonstrate they were not paid earned and accruing promised straight-time wages for hour worked either up to or in excess of 40 hours per week consistent with the Defendant's handbook (non-exempt hourly employees) during at least one (1) workweek within two (2) years prior to the commencement of this action, through the present." The Plaintiff also moves the Court for the following relief related to this Motion: (1) an updated production of names, job titles, dates of employment with Defendant, locations of employment with Defendant, time and pay records, last-known mailing addresses, last-known cell numbers, home phone numbers, personal email addresses, dates of birth, and last four digits of their SSNs of all current and former Rule 23 class members two years preceding the filing of the complaint through the present; (2) ability to email and/or text message the proposed Notice, along with utilizing regular U.S. Mail, posting at Defendant’s convenience stores and/or gas stations; and (3) appointment of named Plaintiff Jeanne Lyliane Gbete as class representative and the Law Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC as class counsel. Sampson-Bladen operates as an oil company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DjwwCj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. Hannah B. Simmons, Esq. Matthew Marlowe, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 1020 Southhill Drive, Suite 130 Cary, NC 27513 Telephone: (919) 741-8693 Facsimile: (919) 869-1853 E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com hsimmons@gildahernandezlaw.com mmarlowe@gildahernandezlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Phillip J. Strach, Esq. Matthew A. Abee, Esq. Nathaniel J. Pencook, Esq. Jordan A. Koonts, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP 301 Hillsborough Street, Suite 1400 Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 329-3800 Facsimile: (919) 329-3799 E-mail: phil.strach@nelsonmullins.com matt.abee@nelsonmullins.com nate.pencook@nelsonmullins.com jordan.koonts@nelsonmullins.com SCHWEBEL BAKING: Parties Seek OK of Court Supervised Notice ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER SHAFFER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SCHWEBEL BAKING COMPANY, Case No. 4:25-cv-01181-BYP (N.D. Ohio), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion for court supervised notice pursuant to 29 u.s.c. section 216(b). The Plaintiff's claims include overtime claims pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff seeks to bring her FLSA overtime claims on behalf of Defendant's employees defined as: "All hourly employees employed by Defendant at its Hebron, Ohio facility who (1) worked at least one workweek in excess of 40 hours since October 1, 2022, AND (2) received shift or other differential pay during such an overtime workweek." The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly employee at the Hebron, Ohio facility from July 2023 through April 2025. On numerous occasions, she worked more than 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant, while not conceding that it violated the FLSA, stipulates that Plaintiff and those she seeks to represent (1) were hourly employees for Defendant at its Hebron facility; (2) worked over 40 hours/week during at least one workweek since October 1, 2022; and (3) were not paid 1.5 times their regular rate for hours beyond 40 during at least one workweek. Accordingly, the Parties believe the Plaintiff has met her burden for notice to such other employees pursuant to Clark. Schwebel is a large regional bakery based in Youngstown, Ohio. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=33Zn0i at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Turner, Esq. Ethan C. Goemann, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ 17th Floor One Town Square Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com egoemann@sommerspc.com The Defendant is represented by: Barry Y. Freeman, Esq. ROETZEL & ANDRESS LPA 1375 East Ninth Street, 10th Floor Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (312) 741-0786 Facsimile: (216) 623-0134 E-mail: bfreeman@ralaw.com SCOUT ENERGY: Hawkins Seeks to Modify Class Certification Schedule ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONNYE HAWKINS, DOYLE MCGRAW, TERESA WILLIAMS, and STEPHEN VAUGHT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01545-N (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed request to modify the class certification scheduling order and enter the Plaintiffs' proposed amended schedule as follows: Event Proposed Deadline Deadline for the plaintiffs to serve Dec. 15, 2025 motion for class certification on the Defendant (and any expert reports in support thereof). The Plaintiffs move to modify the class certification scheduling order to allow sufficient time for the Plaintiffs to prepare and serve their motion for class certification and supporting expert reports. The current order allows only 45 days for Plaintiffs to file their motion. Plaintiffs now request a modified schedule that provides a more typical class certification cadence, while still maintaining the submission date contemplated in the Court’s order. In light of these contemporary standards for class certification, the current due date of October 9, 2025 (within 45 days of the Scheduling Order) is unworkable. It is virtually impossible to obtain and review written discovery, conduct depositions, prepare expert reports, and draft an evidentiary motion consistent with Chavez under a 45-day timeframe. Instead, Plaintiffs request approximately 4 months to submit their motion—still an accelerated schedule for data breach class action cases like this one. Both the third (potential prejudice from allowing the amendment) and fourth (availability of a continuance) factors weigh in favor of granting Plaintiffs' requested modification. Scout, though they consent to the modification, is not prejudiced by Plaintiffs’ request. The case arises out of a data security incident that occurred on Jan. 10, 2024, when an unauthorized actor infiltrated Scout's computer systems and accessed information pertaining to its customers, including the Plaintiffs Scout is a private energy investment manager and an upstream oil and gas operator. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Bq2NgY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Ste. 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. Jonathan T. Deters, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Ste. 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com jdeters@msdlegal.com SECURITAS SECURITY: Bid for Class Cert in Ulloa Due May 15, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL ANGEL ULLOA II, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 4:23-cv-01752-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Ryu entered an order Re Stipulation to Modify Second Amended Case Management and Pretrial Order for Jury Trial. The Court modifies the Second Amended Case Management and Pretrial Order for Jury Trial (Doc. No. 63) as follows: Mediation Deadline: Jan. 28, 2026 Motion for class certification deadline: March 27, 2026 Motion for class certification May 15, 2026 Opposition: Motion for class certification reply: July 17, 2026 Hearing on motion for class Aug. 13, 2026 Certification: The Court will set additional dates following the hearing on the motion for class certification. IT IS SO ORDERED. Securitas is a provider of integrated security services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sp2QBH at no extra charge.[CC] SETERUS INC: Filing for Class Certification in Whitt Due Dec. 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as D. Randolph Whitt, v. Seterus, Inc., Federal National Mortgage Association, Case No. 3:17-cv-01753-SAL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Sherri A. Lydon entered an order establishing the following schedule for this case. 1. A conference of the parties pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) shall be held no later than Oct. 14, 2025. 2. No later than Oct. 16, 2025, the parties shall file a Rule 26(f) Report in the form attached to this order. 3. The parties are to serve their discovery on or before Oct. 14, 2025. Discovery shall be completed no later than Nov. 21, 2025. 4. The Plaintiff's class certification motion is due on or before Dec. 2, 2025. 5. All dispositive motions, Daubert motions, and all other motions, except those to complete discovery, those nonwaivable motions made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, and those relating to the admissibility of evidence at trial (other than Daubert motions), shall be filed on or before Dec. 29, 2025. Seterus was a mortgage servicer that was acquired by Mr. Cooper. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eta3Vf at no extra charge.[CC] SIRIUSXM HOLDINGS: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss False Ads' Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Elle Kehres of RadioWorld reports that a federal judge has refused to throw out a class action lawsuit against SiriusXM. The suit, which accuses the satellite broadcaster of hiding a 21.4% "U.S. Music Royalty Fee" from subscribers, was originally raised by four Oregon residents in June 2024. The plaintiffs in the case allege that SiriusXM engaged in a deceptive pricing scheme in which it falsely advertised its music plans at lower prices than it in fact charged. They assert that the broadcaster violated Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA), and breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. SiriusXM filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in April 2025, arguing that 1) the lawsuit was filed too late, and 2) it should be denied as moot because SiriusXM has since changed its advertising practices with respect to the royalty fee, now including "all-in pricing" on all advertisements to conform with a new California law. The company said no reasonable consumer "would care to (or is entitled to) know anything more" than the "all-in" price of its products, and so that was all it needed to provide to avoid misleading the plaintiffs. However, U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon, in an 18-page opinion and order document, wrote that "a defendant's voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of the practice." Background SiriusXM provides branded satellite radio and internet-only streaming plans to about 33.9 million consumers nationwide, including about 431,000 Oregonians. Most SiriusXM subscribers use SiriusXM's services in their automobiles. The opinion and order document reports that approximately 160 million vehicles operate with SiriusXM radios. These radios are installed in 84% of the new automobiles sold in the United States every year. These new vehicles come with free trials for SiriusXM, and SiriusXM then uses marketing efforts -- such as mail, email and telemarketing calls -- to convert free trial users into paying subscribers. "In these advertisements, SiriusXM advertises the price of its music plans without disclosing or including the royalty fee," wrote Judge Simon in the court order. "In other words, its advertisements did not state the 'true' price of the music plan after adding the cost of the royalty fee -- nor do they even mention a royalty fee. Rather, promotional materials state in fine print, without further detail, that 'fees and taxes apply' to the cost of a monthly subscription." After a subscriber is enrolled, that subscriber's music plan is automatically renewed until the subscriber affirmatively cancels. Beginning in 2009, Sirius XM added an additional flat monthly charge -- the U.S. Music Royalty Fee -- to the price of its monthly music plan charge. In 2009, the rate was 13.9%. The rate is now 21.4%. According to court findings, "In 2023, SiriusXM collected $1.36 billion in royalty fee charges, an amount greater than what Sirius XM actually paid in music royalties." Moving Forward Ruling that SiriusXM's arguments lacked merit and, in some cases, were intentionally false and misleading, Judge Simon denied SiriusXM's petition to dismiss the class action. The court's order means discovery will move forward in the proposed class action, with potential implications for the company's pricing and marketing policies nationwide. The lawsuit seeks restitution, punitive damages and injunctive relief -- a court order used to prevent future harm -- to prevent future deceptive practices. [GN] SKLAR LAW: Class Cert Bid Filing in Green Suit Due Nov. 4 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANITRA GREEN, v. SKLAR LAW, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04186-ESK-EAP (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Pascal entered an amended scheduling order as follows: 1. No later than Oct. 10, 2025, the Defendant shall produce to the Plaintiff a certification concerning the accuracy of all financial records produced in this matter. 2. Class certification and dispositive motions shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court no later than Nov. 14, 2025. 3. The Court will conduct a telephone status conference on Oct. 31, 2025, at 12:30 p.m. Sklar is a full-service commercial law firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1LLjbm at no extra charge.[CC] SOUTHEASTERN GROCERS: White Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Chasity White, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOUTHEASTERN GROCERS, LLC d/b/a Win*n-Dixie, Case No. 3:25-cv-01231 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 13, 2025), is brought to recover these unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendant maintains a common corporate policy not to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and other similarly situated CSMs despite the fact that the Defendant requires its CSMs to work overtime hours. The Defendant classifies CSMs as exempt from the overtime pay requirements of the FLSA. However, the Defendant misclassifies the CSM position as exempt under the FLSA and owes Plaintiff and other similarly situated CSMs unpaid overtime wages and other damages. CSMs, like Plaintiff, primarily perform the same duties as non-exempt classified and overtime-pay eligible store associates who work within the Defendant's supermarkets. As a result of this misclassification, Plaintiff and other CSMs in each of the Defendant's Florida stores have not been paid overtime compensation for the overtime hours worked by them, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as Customer Service Managers ("CSMs"). Southeastern Grocers, LLC d/b/a Winn-Dixie is a grocery chain which operates 400 grocery stores in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Marilyn Linares, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 447-8888 Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com mlinares@shavitzlaw.com - and - Ryan Morgan, Esq. Andrew Frisch, Esq. Kim De Arcangelis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 418-2069 Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com afrisch@forthepeople.com kimd@forthepeople.com SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Bronstin Files Suit Over TCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ ASHER BRONSTIN, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY D/B/A SOCAL EDISON, Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-02334 (C.D. Cal., October 16, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for making robocalls to cellular telephones and other protected telephones, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. The Plaintiff alleges that he has not provided his phone number to Defendant, nor consented to contact from Defendant. Despite that, he received multiple pre-recorded calls from Defendant SoCal Edison on April 16, 2025 until July 18, 2025. The calls were apparently intended for someone else other than him. He possesses recordings of the calls which very clearly demonstrate that they were pre-recorded calls with the personalized portions played be a computer voice. The Plaintiff further states that they were temporarily deprived of legitimate use of their phones because the phone line was tied up, they were charged for the calls and their privacy was improperly invaded. Moreover, the call injured Plaintiff because they were frustrating, obnoxious, annoying, and were a nuisance. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant SoCal Edison admitted in placing the calls at issue and is therefore directly liable, says the suit. Defendant Southern California Edison Company d/b/a SoCal Edison, the largest subsidiary of Edison International, is the primary electric utility company for much of Southern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana J. Oliver, Esq. OLIVER LAW CENTER, INC. 8780 19th Street #559 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Telephone: (855) 384-3262 Facsimile: (888) 570-2021 E-mail: dana@danaoliverlaw.com SPECIALIZED LOAN: Seeks to Clarify Conditional Cert Order --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYZHIMA BUTLER, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01087-PAB-SBP (D. Colo.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order to clarify (or reconsider) its Order granting the Plaintiff's pre-discovery motion for conditional collective certification and court-authorized notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs. The Plaintiff provided no "substantial allegations" that any positions that used different computer programs, engaged in different duties, and were subjected to different policies are similarly situated. Incentive plans are a key component of the "the timekeeping and attendance polices that [allegedly] resulted in [Plaintiff] not being paid overtime compensation," based on the allegations in the Complaint and Plaintiff’s and Opt-In Plaintiff Ms. Tweed’s declarations. If an employee is not part of an incentive plan, then it is not possible for SLS to have erred by not including incentive payments in the employee’s regular rate. For these reasons, SLS seeks clarification that these are indeed the criteria the Court envisioned for identifying collective members and, if not, reconsider its decision. The Court granted the Plaintiff's motion on Sept. 10, 2025, conditionally certifying a collective of "All current and former hourly call center agents who worked remotely for Specialized Loan Servicing LLC or Newrez LLC at any time beginning Sept. 10, 2022." Specialized operates as a financial company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ux8Sk7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Alana A. Karbal, Esq. Albert J. Asciutto, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com akarbal@sommerspc.com aasciutto@sommerspc.com The Defendant is represented by: Marielle A. Moore, Esq. Jason N.W. Plowman, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 2000 S. Colorado Blvd. Tower 3, Suite 900 Denver, CO 80222 Telephone: (303) 764-6800 Facsimile: (303) 831-9246 E-mail: marielle.moore@ogletree.com jason.plowman@ogletree.com SPRINTFONE INC: Bland Bid to Commence Discovery OK'd ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY BLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly stuated, v. SPRINTFONE INC. d/b/a TALKDAILY, Case No. 1:25-cv-00782-FJS-MJK (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mitchell J. Katz entered an order granting Bland's "Motion To Commence Discovery To Obtain Records That Identify Putative Class Members." The Court further entered an order that Bland may utilize Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 to conduct any post-default discovery needed to obtain information regarding the identity of putative class members, for the "ultimate purpose of seeking class certification and/or a classwide or individual default judgment." Bland shall complete all discovery on or before Jan. 30, 2026. The Complaint appears to sufficiently state a claim under the TCPA, and Bland has sufficiently alleged that the Defendant's purported violation of the statute results affects members of the proposed class. "Accordingly, there exists good cause for limited discovery to identify class members and to determine damages." Bland commenced this action on June 17, 2025 by filing a Class Action Complaint seeking relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. The Complaint was served on June 25, 2025. On Aug. 26, 2025, Bland filed a request for a Clerk's entry of default. Bland's request was granted on Aug. 27, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s3OmU1 at no extra charge.[CC] STATE FARM: 6th Cir. Split in Affirming Class Status of Clippinger ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirms class certification in the lawsuit titled JESSICA CLIPPINGER, nka Jessica Pyron, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. STATE FARM AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 24-5421 (6th Cir.). The three-judge panel consisted of the Hon. Karen Nelson Moore, Julia Smith Gibbons and Eric E. Murphy. Judge Gibbons delivered the Opinion of the Court in which Judge Moore concurred. Judge Murphy delivered a separate dissenting opinion. The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis (assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02482, Thomas L. Parker, District Judge). In this case, the district court certified a class of Tennesseans insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company who, after their cars were totaled, received a payout from State Farm that was calculated utilizing car valuation data generated by another company, Audatex. Named Plaintiff-Appellee Jessica Clippinger argues that the use of a particular cost adjustment as part of this methodology impermissibly reduced those valuations in breach of contract and Tennessee law. The district court certified a class made up of State Farm-insured Tennessee plaintiffs, who received an "actual cash value" payout for the total loss of a car, where the payout was calculated by that methodology and decreased by application of the challenged adjustment. The certified class is as follows: All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of insurance issued by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company to a Tennessee resident who, from May 8, 2019, through the date an order granting class certification is entered, received compensation for the total loss of a covered vehicle, where that compensation was based on an appraisal report prepared by Audatex and the actual cash value was decreased based upon typical negotiation adjustments ("TNA") to the comparable vehicles used to determine actual cash value. State Farm appealed the class certification, and the Panel granted review. Judge Gibbons notes that the class action is brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Thus, the class must satisfy the four requirements of Rule 23(a) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy), as well as the two additional requirements of 23(b)(3) (predominance and superiority), and the Rule's implied requirement of ascertainability. The Panel concludes that the class has satisfied all seven prerequisites. "It is true that Clippinger's own damages -- and ultimate damages among the class members -- may differ because of a reference, or lack of reference, to appraisal costs. However, we agree with the district court that such individualized damage inquires do not defeat predominance because they flow from the same theory of liability," the appeals court holds. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirms the district court's order certifying the class and remands for further proceedings. Judge Murphy disagreed with the majority. He explained, "Many cases from around the country have presented the same basic question: Suppose an insurer promises to pay the 'actual cash value' of an insured's vehicle if the vehicle gets destroyed in an accident. Suppose further that the insurer uses a general method to calculate actual cash value. If car owners believe that this method includes an improper deduction, may they pursue a class action? By my count, five circuit courts have now answered 'no' because individual issues about the unique value of each vehicle will dominate all other questions. See Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co., __ F.4th __, 2025 WL 2628179, at *4–5 (9th Cir. Sept. 12, 2025); Freeman v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 149 F.4th 461, 468–71 (4th Cir. 2025); Schroeder v. Progressive Paloverde Ins. Co., 146 F.4th 567, 576–78 (7th Cir. 2025); Drummond v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 142 F.4th 149, 158–61 (3d Cir. 2025); Sampson v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 83 F.4th 414, 417, 421–23 (5th Cir. 2023)." "My colleagues disagree with these circuits by certifying a class that should result in some 90,000 trials about the fair market value of each class member's car. And to the extent that my colleagues can avoid that result, they may do so only by violating the insurer's 'substantive right' to prove that it paid each class member an amount equal to the fair market value of that class member's car. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 367 (2011) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b)). I would not create this circuit split or certify this unwieldy class action. So I respectfully dissent." A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Oct. 9, 2025, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc5hjnpp from GovInfo.com. Eric L. Robertson -- robertson@wtotrial.com -- Daniel N. Nightingale -- dnightingale@yettercoleman.com -- WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP, in Denver, Colorado, Peter W. Herzog III -- pherzog@wtotrial.com -- WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP, in St. Louis, Missouri, Christopher L. Vescovo, LEWIS THOMASON, Memphis, Tennessee, for the Appellant. Lee Lowther -- llowther@cbplaw.com -- CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC, in Little Rock, Arkansas, for the Appellee. Jacob L. Phillips -- jacob@jacobsonphillips.com -- JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC, in Altamonte Springs, Florida, for the Appellee. Adam G. Unikowsky -- aunikowsky@jenner.com -- JENNER & BLOCK LLP, in Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae. STUBHUB HOLDINGS: Faces Class Lawsuit Over FanProtect Guarantee --------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that StubHub Holdings Inc. has misleadingly touted its "FanProtect Guarantee," given that the ticket seller "routinely" provides inferior tickets while refusing to offer refunds, even when better or comparable tickets are available on the platform. The 30-page StubHub lawsuit claims that the secondary ticketing platform has failed to honor the terms of its "FanProtect Guarantee," StubHub's assurance that it will find comparable tickets to those originally ordered should they become unavailable at the time of the event, or offer a full refund. This guarantee is reiterated to consumers during checkout, where the defendant imposes "fees specifically tied to the security promised by the FanProtect Guarantee, marking it as peace of mind and protection for consumers," the complaint states. In practice, the case summarizes, StubHub has "constructed a business process that allows it to super-size its profit when sellers are unable to provide the tickets that buyers have purchased." The plaintiff is a Washington resident who, in August 2024, purchased three tickets for approximately $14,000 to the Taylor Swift Eras Tour set to take place on December 6, 2024 in Vancouver, British Columbia. On the day of the concert, the lawsuit shares, StubHub informed the plaintiff that her tickets were unavailable but, pursuant to the FanProtect Guarantee, presented her with two options: three tickets in a much worse section worth around $3,600 total, or three tickets in a listening-only section that had no view of the stage. She was given no option for a full refund, the filing says. At that point, the plaintiff discovered on her own that there were other seats still available for sale on StubHub that were in a similar section to her original ones, the complaint relays. The consumer requested these tickets while talking to a customer service representative, but StubHub refused, the suit claims. Because this was the last show of the tour and the plaintiff was already on her way to the venue, she felt like she had "no meaningful choice" but to take the tickets in the inferior section, the complaint shares. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not receive a refund for the approximately $10,400 she was owed, and StubHub instead "pocketed the difference," the suit alleges. StubHub's conduct contradicts its promises to fulfill "comparable tickets or a full refund" as they display numerous times across their website, the complaint contends. The class action lawsuit was filed amid thousands of other complaints that, according to the Better Business Bureau, accuse StubHub of "fail[ing] to resolve underlying cause(s) of a pattern of complaints." As recently as 2024, StubHub faced similar class action lawsuits over the alleged understatement of "junk fees" on the site and for apparently knowingly facilitating the sale of fraudulent tickets. Across the suits, the sentiment is similar: had the plaintiffs known about StubHub's actions, they would not have elected to use its services to buy tickets. StubHub has yet to publicly acknowledge the allegations centered on its FanProtect Guarantee and continues to sell tickets to thousands of concerts, shows, sporting events, and other upcoming experiences worldwide, the case mentions. The StubHub class action lawsuit looks to cover anyone who has purchased one or more tickets to an event through StubHub in the United States within the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] STUDIOH HOSPITALITY: Faces Lee Suit Over Servers' Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Yaejin Lee, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Studioh Hospitality Inc, Eight Tables Inc, Kuun Inc, Ms. Ohho Inc., Ohka Hospitality Inc, Min Sung Kang and Ju Young Oh, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05657 (E.D.N.Y., October 9, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in numerous violations of federal and state laws during Plaintiff's employment, including (a) failure to pay minimum wages; (b) illegal retention of employee gratuities; (c) failure to provide accurate wage notices; and (d) failure to provide wage statements. Plaintiff Lee was hired by the Defendants to work as a server for Defendant Eight Tables Inc. d/b/a Atti Korean BBQ Restaurant from July 19, 2024 to August 16, 2025. Studioh Hospitality, Inc. owns and operates various restaurants in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Kim, Esq. RYAN KIM LAW, P.C. 222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd. Suite 490 Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Telephone: ryan@RyanKimLaw.com SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: Klein Sues Over Defective Ovens ------------------------------------------------- Douglas Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05874-AT (N.D. Ga., Oct. 13, 2025), is brought against Defendant for the manufacture, distribution, marketing and sale of Oster-brand French Door Countertop Ovens ("Oven(s)" or "Product(s)") all of which suffer from an identical defect. Each of the 1.29 million Ovens have identical defective spring-loaded doors that unexpectedly close, posing a burn hazard to consumers, which Sunbeam failed to disclose to consumers at the time of purchase (the "Defect"). As a result of the Defect, Sunbeam received at least 95 reports of the doors unexpectedly closing, resulting in burn injuries to consumers, including two reports of second-degree burns. Despite the Recall, which is not a form of adjudication, Sunbeam refuses to provide refunds for its admittedly defective products. Instead, consumers' only option is to attempt to repair the Product themselves with a repair kit consisting of clip-on devices, regardless of whether they have the aptitude or time to do so. Even more, the so-called repair kit is not yet available to consumers, with Sunbeam vaguely stating that the repair kits will "begin shipping in November," with limited information regarding the repair kit and whether and when it will be available to all consumers. Every Product suffers from the uniform Defect, which, unknown to consumers but known to Defendant, exists at the point of purchase and poses an unreasonable safety hazard to consumers, which prevents the Products from being used, as the Recall instructs consumers to discontinue using the Ovens. As such, Plaintiff and all reasonable consumers are victims of the unfair bargaining power between them and Defendant based on Defendant's superior industry knowledge. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit seeking all available relief to consumers, to raise awareness that Sunbeam's Products suffer from the uniform Defect and to "encourage companies to take greater care in avoiding the production and sale of hazardous products in the first place," says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased an Oster French Door Countertop Oven in Florida. Sunbeam designed, produced and marketed the Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Cameron Tribble, Esq. BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC 31 Atlanta Street Marietta, GA 30060 Phone: 770-227-6375 Email: ctribble@barneslawgroup.com - and - Rachel Soffin, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Phone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 Email: rsoffin@pwfirm.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Ste. 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: 617-377-7404 Email: joel@skclassactions.com - and - Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 28 Geary Street, Suite 650 # 1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: 415-839-7000 Email: yeremey@skclassactions.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Ryan T. Gott, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Avenue S., Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Phone: (612) 389-0600 Facsimile: (612) 389-0610 Email: mweiner@pwfirm.com rgott@pwfirm.com - and - Christopher Jennings, Esq. Tyler Ewigleben, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY, PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 255-8569 Facsimile: (501) 344-6161 Email: chris@jefirm.com tyler@jefirm.com T-MOBILE USA: Diaz Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled RYAN DIAZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25cv019618, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on October 9, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02933-CSK to the proceeding. The Complaint asserts Defendants' violation of the California Labor Code. T-Mobile USA, Inc. is an American wireless network operator headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.[BN] Defendant T-Mobile USA is represented by: Chad Greeson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. Treat Towers, Suite 600 1255 Treat Boulevard Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Telephone: (925) 932-2468 Email: cgreeson@littler.com TARGET CORP: Seeks to Stay Davis Pending "Montgomery" Outcome ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TEYVIONE DAVIS, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:25-cv-02393-JGB-MBK (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on Nov. 3, 2025, will move the Court to stay proceedings on the plaintiff's complaint in its entirety pending the outcome in: "Sherry Montgomery and Yesenia Alba, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Target Corporation, a Minnesota corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, U.S.D.C., C.D. Cal., 2:19-cv-04924-JGB-MBK ("Montgomery")." The motion is made on the grounds that the claims asserted in this putative wage and-hour class action substantially overlap those asserted in Montgomery, another putative wage-and-hour class action; plaintiff would not be prejudiced by a stay; it would be highly inefficient and wasteful of the resources of the Court and the parties if this action were to proceed during the pendency of class proceedings in Montgomery; and the orderly course of justice, measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law, would be served by a stay. Target is an American retail corporation. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pYrJdc at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq. Eric D. Distelburger, Esq. Aja S. Nunn, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 101 California Street, 48th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 856-7000 Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com ericdistelburger@paulhastings.com ajanunn@paulhastings.com TEKSYSTEMS INC: Bid to Remand Unfair Competition Claim OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BO AVERY, PHOEBE RODGERS, KRISTY CAMILLERI, and JILL UNVERFERTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TEKSYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-02733-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") claim. The Court also amends the certified class definition to include: (1) a class of: "all current and former Recruiters employed by the Defendant in California from Jan. 28, 2019 to the final date of judgment; and (2) a subclass of: "all class members who worked for the Defendant as Recruiters on or after Jan. 28, 2019 and who are no longer employed by the Defendant and have not been employed by the Defendant for more than 72 hours." The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding proposed notice for the 52 Recruiters no longer included in the class. The further case management conference set for Nov. 19, 2025 remains on calendar. An updated joint case management conference statement is due one week in advance. A certified class of Recruiters for TEKsystems, Inc. (“TEK”) allege TEK improperly classifies them as exempt from California overtime, wage, and hour laws and therefore illegally underpays recruiters. The Plaintiffs filed this action in California state court and Defendants removed it to this Court. The parties agree the Plaintiffs' UCL claim for restitution has an adequate remedy at law, and Plaintiffs disavow seeking injunctive relief under the UCL. The Court therefore lacks equitable jurisdiction over the UCL claims and remands them to state court. Given the limitations period for the remaining claims, the Court amends the class definition to have a start date of January 28, 2019, and orders notice to the Recruiters no longer included in the class. The Defendant is an information technology ("IT") staffing and services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0458O2 at no extra charge.[CC] TERA JACKSON-DAVIS: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONTAZ KENNEDY, v. TERA JACKSON-DAVIS et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-11290-LJM-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Laurie Michelson entered an order granting the Defendants' motion for an extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AzjWKk at no extra charge.[CC] TLC HOUSE: Faces Sparks Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- TIFFANY SPARKS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TLC HOUSE AND RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, LLC and TAMARA BRWON, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02034-RLY-MJD (S.D.. Ind., October 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff and the members of the Wage Class and Collective Action were not paid overtime premiums of time and a half of their regular rate when they worked 40 or more hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff brings this case as a collective action on behalf of a class consisting of all similarly situated persons who are or were employed as non-exempt employees of TLC which is owned and managed by Ms. Brown TLC House and Residential Services Inc. is a limited liability company that is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald E. Weldy, Esq. WELDY LAW 11268 Governors Lane Fishers, IN 46037 Telephone: (317) 289-0483 E-mail: rweldy@weldylegal.com TOMOCREDIT INC: Faces Ramos Suit Over Unauthorized Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------------- ABELARDO RAMOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOMOCREDIT INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-08510-JSC (N.D. Cal., October 6, 2025) is a putative class action against the Defendant pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its services, the Defendant engages in aggressive unsolicited telemarketing, harming Plaintiff and other thousands of consumers in the process. The Defendant utilizes aggressive marketing to push its products and services without regards to consumers' rights under the TCPA, says the suit. Through this action, the Plaintiff seek injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiffs also seek statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the classes, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Tomocredit Inc. is a financial services company that provides credit-building services to consumers based out in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com TRADER JOE'S: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Probiotic Supplement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Trader Joe's Advanced Strength Probiotic supplement does not contain 30 billion colony-forming units (CFUs) as advertised, and instead has, at most, about eight billion CFUs. The 31-page lawsuit contends that Trader Joe's has misled consumers by overstating the efficacy and benefits of its probiotic supplement for digestive and immune health. Specifically, the filling says, the higher number of live and active microorganisms -- "good bacteria" -- in a probiotic helps to "support both digestive health and overall wellness," while a decreased CFU count does not achieve these sought-after benefits as effectively. "The number of colony-forming units directly correlates with a probiotic's viability and its ability to effectuate its stated purposes (e.g., digestive and immune health)," the suit explains. The plaintiffs purchased the supplements at issue several times throughout 2023 and 2024, specifically "relying on its label claims," the suit says. However, independent analytical testing conducted by the plaintiffs on multiple samples revealed that the "CFU count [was] materially below (i.e., at best 70% less than) the promised 30 billion CFU label claim," the lawsuit says. This analytical testing on 12 samples across three separate lots showed that they contain 8.7 billion CFUs at best, and only 118 million at worst, the complaint states. A recent spike in popularity caused the global probiotics market to reach a value of almost $88 billion in 2023, the case relays, and the suit claims that the majority of consumers' "most preferred media for learning more is via product packaging." The lawsuit quotes the Food and Drug Administration's Dietary Supplement Labeling Guide, which explicitly states that all supplements "must contain 100% of the volume or weight that [the manufacturer] declared on the label," meaning supplements must consistently meet the composition, strength, and purity specifications stated on product labels before their expiration to be sold in the United States. The Trader Joe's class action lawsuit looks to cover any individual who purchased the Advanced Strength Probiotic in New York and California during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] TRANSDEV SERVICES: Lovejoy Wins Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERISHA LOVEJOY, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00380-AJB-MMP (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Battaglia entered an order granting the Plaintiff's renewed motion. With regard to the fifth cause of action, the Court certifies the following class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3): "All current and former California Bus Driver/Operator employees of Transdev Services, Inc. who drove routes with stops in California during the period from Feb. 27, 2022 through the present ("Class Period")." With regard to the sixth cause of action, the Court certifies the following class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3): "All former California Bus Driver/Operator employees of Transdev Services, Inc. who drove routes with stops in California during the period from Feb. 27, 2020 through the present ("Sub-Class Period")." Furthermore, the Court appoints Plaintiff Cherisha Lovejoy as class representative and appoints Hewgill Cobb & Lockard, APC and Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes, LLP to serve as class counsel. Considering the wage statements within the proposed class period proffered by both Plaintiff and Defendant, the Court is satisfied that the common question of whether Defendant’s wage statements comply with California Labor Code section 226 is capable of class-wide proof and will predominate for the fifth cause of action. Because the sixth cause of action is derivative of Plaintiff’s labor code violation claims, which the Court has previously deemed suitable for class treatment, and considering the amended subclass definition, the Court finds the sixth cause of action similarly suitable for certification. On Aug. 11, 2025, the Court granted in part the Plaintiff's first motion for class certification, certifying the Plaintiff's first, second, third, fourth, seventh and eighth causes of action. The Court denied without prejudice the motion with regard to the fifth and sixth causes of action. On Aug. 25, 2025, the Plaintiff timely filed the instant motion seeking certification of the fifth and sixth causes of action. Transdev provides passenger transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1pHqgw at no extra charge.[CC] TRUE FINANCE: Kelly Sues Over Predatory Lending Practices --------------------------------------------------------- Sterling Kelly, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRUE FINANCE LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-01284 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 13, 2025), is brought seeking to protect active-duty military servicemembers from True Finance's predatory lending practices that violate the Military Lending Act ("MLA") and the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"). By virtue of the sky-high fees charged for early access to his salary, True Finance has extended consumer credit to Plaintiff on numerous occasions in violation of the MLA and TILA. In violation of the MLA, Defendant uses its cash advance product to saddle Covered Members with charges that, on average, yield a military annual percentage rate ("MAPR") well in excess of the MLA's legal limit. True Finance systematically violates the Truth in Lending Act by failing to make required disclosures concerning the interest rate charged as part of its loan agreements with consumers. Among the abusive lending practices that the MLA was designed to curb was predatory payday loans made to servicemembers. In a Department of Defense ("DoD") report on predatory lending practices affecting military members (the "Report"), the egregious lending practices prevalent in the payday lending industry were highlighted. True Finance's business practices violate the MLA and TILA and are part of a systematic nationwide policy and practice. Spc. Kelly seeks to hold Defendant accountable for its actions and prevent its predatory lending practices from continuing, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Specialist in the U.S. Army and has used True Finance's cash advance product on multiple occasions. True Finance has offered and entered into loan agreements with consumers, including Covered Members, for many years, entering into at least hundreds of thousands of credit transactions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bart Dalton, Esq. Katarzyna Brozynski, Esq. BROZYNSKI & DALTON PC 5700 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 300 Plano, TX 75024 Phone: +1 (972) 371-0679 Email: bart@bdlegalgroup.com kasia@bdlegalgroup.com - and - Lee Lowther, Esq. Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. Courtney Ross Brown, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72207 Phone: (501) 312-8500 Email: llowther@cbplaw.com cbrown@cbplaw.com rpulliam@cbplaw.com - and - Joshua Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS, PLLC 2277 Lee Road, Ste. B Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (321) 447-6461 Email: joshua@jacobsonphillips.com TUNGRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Alshubrumi Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Tungray Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F/A Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 14, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Alshubrumi securities class suit in the New York Supreme Court. On August 7, 2025, Mohammed Alshubrumi (the "Plaintiff"), on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, brought a putative class action (the "Action") before the New York Supreme Court, against the Company, Wanjun Yao, its Chairman, CEO and Director, Alex Gong, its former Chief Financial Officer, and the representative of the underwriters of the Company's IPO, alleging that the financial statements disclosed in the Company's registration statement and prospectus relating to the IPO were materially false in violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The Plaintiff sought statutory damages and injunctive relief under the Securities Act. The Company denies any and all wrongdoing alleged in the Action, and intends to vigorously defend itself in the Action. Tungray Technologies Inc is an engineer-to-order company. The Company provides tooling and customized industrial manufacturing solutions to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) in the industry sectors of semiconductors, printers, electronics, and home appliances sectors. Tungray Technologies serves customers in Singapore and China.[BN] TYLER PERRY: Standing Order Entered in Dixon Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Derek Dixon, v. Tyler Perry, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-09112-JFW-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Walter entered a standing order as follows: The plaintiff shall promptly serve the complaint in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and shall file the proof(s) of service pursuant to the Local Rules. The plaintiff is notified that failure to serve the Complaint as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) will result in the dismissal of the Complaint against the unserved defendant(s). Lead trial counsel shall attend all proceedings before this Court and all Local Rule 7-3, scheduling, status, and settlement conferences. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XqiwWG at no extra charge.[CC] UNDER ARMOUR: Filing for Class Cert Bid Modified to March 31, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN LO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC., a Maryland corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-01258-IM (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Karin J. Immergut entered an order modifying class certification schedule. Event Date Deadline for the Plaintiff to file March 31, 2026 motion for class certification, identify and file reports or declarations for class certification expert(s): Deadline for the Plaintiff to produce April 28, 2026 class certification expert(s) for deposition: Deadline for the Defendant to file May 25, 2026 opposition to motion for class certification, identify and file reports or declarations of class certification expert(s): Deadline for the Defendant to produce June 25, 2026 class certification expert(s) for deposition: Deadline for Plaintiff to file reply in July 22, 2026 support of motion for class certification: Under Armour is a specialty retailer of athletic apparel. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l9zPZi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Joan M. Pradhan, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 5th Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com jpradhan@tousley.com - and - Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. James B. Drimmer, Esq. Scott G. Braden, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1234 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 The Defendants are represented by: Andrew R. Escobar, Esq. Wendy M. Feng, Esq. Giovanna A. Ferrari, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4700 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 946-4910 Facsimile: (206) 946-4901 E-mail: aescobar@seyfarth.com wfeng@seyfarth.com gferrari@seyfarth.com UNIQUE ON THE GO: Perez Class Suit Removed to D. Mass. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled CARLOS HUMBERTO PEREZ, JOSE CARLOS DOS SANTOS RHODES, AND GLAUDECI PATRICO DA SILVA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNIQUE ON THE GO CORP., SARA SANTOS, AND THE HERTZ CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2577CV00673B, was removed from the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the County of Essex to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on October 6, 2025. The Clerk of the Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-12906 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs assert claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, arising out of their relationship with Defendants and compensation by same. Unique on the Go Corp. provides labor and staffing solutions for facilities.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Stephen T. Melnick, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One International Place, Suite 2700 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 378-6000 Facsimile: (617) 737-0052 E-mail: smelnick@littler.com UNITED GUARD: Class Cert Hearing in Vyalkov Set for Nov. 12 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as (PS) Vyalkov, et al., v. United Guard Services of America, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02478 (E.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 29, 2025), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order that the hearing on the motions now calendared for Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2025, are ordered submitted without appearance and without argument pursuant to Local Rule 230 (g). If the Court subsequently concludes that oral argument is necessary, a hearing will be set and the parties notified accordingly. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act. United is a provider of specialized security solutions, including armed guards, for businesses.[CC] UNITED GUARD: Vyalkov Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alex A. Vyalkov and Julius M. Engel, v. United Guard Services of America (USGOA) et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02478-DAD-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on Nov. 12, 2025, for: 1. Class action designation for protective security officers in USGOA; 2. Appointment of class action counsel at the expense of the Defendants; 3. Appointment of special master at the expense of the Defendants; 4. A Court Ordered accounting of USGOA, by the FBI, at the expense of the Defendants including expenditure of membership fees collected by USGOA. United provides specialized security solutions. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dNGPni at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. UNITED STATES: LWV Seeks Certification of Prelim Relief Subclass ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, et al., v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03501-UNA (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the following preliminary relief ("PR") subclass: "All naturalized citizens whose records within Social Security Administration databases do not accurately reflect their U.S. citizenship status, and who reside in jurisdictions using DHS's overhauled SAVE system for activities relating to voter registration and voter roll maintenance." The Plaintiffs further request that the Court appoint the PR Subclass Plaintiffs as class representatives and Democracy Forward Foundation, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and Fair Elections Center as class counsel. Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N017c6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Johanna M. Hickman, Esq. Aman T. George, Esq. Jennifer Fountain Connolly, Esq. Mark B. Samburg, Esq. Robin Thurston, Esq. DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION Washington, DC 20043 Telephone: (202) 448-9090 E-mail: hhickman@democracyforward.org ageorge@democracyforward.org jconnolly@democracyforward.org msamburg@democracyforward.org rthurston@democracyforward.org - and - Nikhel S. Sus, Esq. John B. Hill, Esq. Lauren C. Bingham, Esq. Yoseph T. Desta, Esq. CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 408-5565 Facsimile: (202) 588-5020 E-mail: nsus@citizensforethics.org jhill@citizensforethics.org lbingham@citizensforethics.org ydesta@citizensforethics.org - and - Jon Sherman, Esq. Michelle Kanter Cohen, Esq. Emily Davis, Esq. FAIR ELECTIONS CENTER 1825 K St. NW, Suite 701 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 331-0114 E-mail: jsherman@fairelectionscenter.org mkantercohen@fairelectionscenter.org edavis@fairelectionscenter.org UNIVERSAL LENDERS: Bakale Files Suit in Ill. Cir. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Universal Lenders, LLC. The case is styled as Matthew Bakale, Samantha Krulicki, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Universal Lenders, LLC, Case No. 2025LA0831 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Lake Cty., Sept. 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Negligence." Universal Lenders LLC -- https://thezeroplan.com/wp/ -- is a financial services company specializing in providing innovative lending solutions to automotive dealerships.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com US MED: Parties in Leedy Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leedy v. US Med Direct, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00631 (M.D. Fla., Filed Oct. 8, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. Ther suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). US MED is a leading provider of diabetes supplies.[CC] VETERANS ALLIANCE: Bid to Deny Class Cert. in Mitchell Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VETERANS ALLIANCE, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00617-CLB (D. Nev.), the Court denying the Defendant's motion to deny class certification and redefine the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective. Accordingly, the Court finds that Veterans' motion to deny Kentucky Class certification and redefine the FLSA Collective on the basis that a significant portion of the members are uninjured as a matter of law is premature and must be denied. Again, Veterans may renew its challenge once discovery is complete and the issue is fully developed. That said, the Court acknowledges discovery does not close until July 13, 2026, and additional relevant evidence may be adduced in the interim. Should that happen, Veterans may relitigate this issue when Mitchell moves to certify the Kentucky Class at the close of discovery. The Plaintiff, a former Veterans employee, filed suit alleging that Veterans uses a per diem pay scheme which deprives its employees of overtime wages at the proper rate in violation of the FLSA and the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act ("KWHA"). The Plaintiff seeks to represent a collective of similarly situated employees under the FLSA (the "FLSA Collective"), as well as a class of similarly situated employees located in Kentucky under the KWHA pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (the "Kentucky Class"). Veterans is a recruiting company that provides onsite staffing solutions and aircraft maintenance staffing services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sbuJso at no extra charge.[CC] VOLT MANAGEMENT: Bid to Continue Class Cert Discovery Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIBEL GONZALEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VOLT MANAGEMENT CORP., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01348-KES-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order denying without prejudice the parties' second stipulated request to continue class certification discovery and motion dates and deadlines of the scheduling order In light of the Court’s earlier admonition to the parties that it was disinclined to grant further extensions of case management dates absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court declines at this point to grant the parties' stipulated request. Specifically, the parties' unspecified representations that they were unable to proceed with the previously scheduled mediation "due to circumstances outside the parties' control," without further explanation, does not establish extraordinary circumstances to warrant a further extension of case management dates. The Court has no information before it concerning the operative timeline of events and whether they exercised reasonable diligence in seeking the requested extensions of deadlines when the need for such extensions became apparent. The Plaintiff initiated the putative class action with the filing of a complaint on Sept. 26, 2024, in Kern County Superior Court. The Defendants removed the case to this Court on Nov. 4, 2024. On June 20, 2025, the Court granted the parties' first stipulated request to continue the class certification briefing schedule and discovery-related dates and deadlines. Volt is a staffing and recruitment company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BSs191 at no extra charge.[CC] WA CUSHION: Bermudez Suit Seeks to Certify Classes -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN BERMUDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. W A Cushion SDN, BHD, Case No. 5:24-cv-02376-SSS-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Nov. 14, 2025, will move the Court for an order certifying the following Classes: Nationwide Class: "All persons who purchased a subject bed Product on wayfair.com." California class: "All persons who purchased a subject bed Product in California on wayfair.com." Excluded from the putative classes are the Defendants and any entities in which the Defendants have a controlling interest, the Defendants' agents and employees, the judge to whom this action is assigned, members of the judge's staff, and the judge's immediate family. Also excluded are any claims for personal injury. The Plaintiff further seeks appointment of Smith Krivoshey, PC as Class Counsel, and for the Plaintiff Martin Bermudez to be appointed as the Class Representative. On Jan. 18, 2024, the CPSC announced a recall of roughly 529,177 beds manufactured by Defendant W A Cushion SDN, BHD. The Plaintiff alleges, and Defendant effectively admits in default, that the Products are "unreasonably dangerous," are "unsuitable for their principal and intended purpose," and have no "intrinsic value." On Feb. 6, 2025, the Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint, adding Defendant W A Cushion, Snd, Bhd. On March 21, 2025, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion, authorizing Plaintiff to serve Defendant W A Cushion Sdn, Bhd through email and international mail, return receipt requested. The Defendant is a manufacturer of home furnishings operating out of Malaysia. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qkmh9V at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 28 Geary Street, Ste. 650 # 1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7000 E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com joel@skclassactions.com WALMART INC: Radford Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walmart, Inc. The case is styled as Patricia Radford, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Walmart, Inc., Case No. 25STCV29988 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 13, 2025). The case type is stated "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Walmart Inc. -- https://www.walmart.com/ -- is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores in the United States and 23 other countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William C. Sung, Esq. JUSTICE FOR WORKERS, P.C. 600 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1815 Los Angeles, CA 90010-2622 Phone: 323-922-2000 Email: william@justiceforworkers.com WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Flowers Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Astrid M. Flowers, on behalf of themself and all others similarly situated, v. Washington University, d/b/a The Washington University School of Medicine, Case No. 4:24-cv-01504-ZMB (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Authorizing a collective action for overtime violations and non-payment of wages for hour-worked, under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), on behalf of themselves and similarly situated past and present employees of defendants Washington University, with the collective to be defined as follows: "All employees/participants of Washington University School of Medicine's Departments of Developmental Biology, Cell Biology, & Regenerative Medicine (DCBRM) Postbaccalaureate Research Program who are or were employed by the Defendant for the period of Nov. 8, 2021 to the present, and who are not or were not compensated at one-and-one-half times the regular rate of pay for all work performed in excess of 40 hours per week;" and 2. Directing the Defendants to produce to the Plaintiffs' counsel within ten days of the Order granting this Motion a list of the names, the last known addresses, last known email addresses, and phone numbers for putative collective members. The Defendant is a private research university in St. Louis, Missouri. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O5IP2C at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip E. Oliphant, Esq. THE ROLWES LAW FIRM, LLC 254 Court Avenue Memphis TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 519-9135 Facsimile: (901) 979-2499 E-mail: poliphant@rolweslaw.com WELLSTAR HEALTH: Class Certification Bid Filing Due July 24, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe v. Wellstar Health System, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01748 (N.D. Ga., Filed April 23, 2024), the Hon. Judge J. P. Boulee entered an order that the Motion for Class Certification shall be filed no later than July 24, 2026. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal Injury. Wellstar is an integrated healthcare system in Georgia.[CC] WESTGATE VACATION: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tina, et al., v. Westgate Vacation Villas, LLC, et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-01924 (M.D. Fla., Filed Oct. 3, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the Parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports -- class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery -- class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Breach of Contract. Westgate offers spacious villas with all the comforts of home.[CC] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***