251028.mbx

251028.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, October 28, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 215 Headlines 2K GAMES: Plaintiff Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal 5.11 INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Tate Suit Due Jan. 16, 2026 ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Allowed Leave to File Renewed Class Cert Bid AERO COSMETICS: Standing Order Entered in Schmitman Class Suit AG-PRO LLC: Lioces Seeks to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective AGA SERVICE: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Response AMERICAN ACCOUNTS: Bids for Class Certification Due April 3, 2026 ASC ENGINEERED: Jamison Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages BACKYARD KIDS: Ford Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BELFOR USA: $1.6MM Class Settlement in Rodriguez Gets Final Nod BENEFITS NOW: Bid for Leave to Conduct Class Cert Discovery OK'd BLUESKY HEALTHCARE: Garcia Seeks Rule 23 Certification BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Class Cert Hearing Set for June 16, 2026 BRAZOS VALLEY: Class Cert. Hearing in Fazzino Suit Set for Dec. 25 BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Martin Appeals Class Cert. Order to 2nd Circuit BROOKLYN BEDDING: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 28, 2026 BROOKSIDE FARMS: Whittle Seeks Approval of Notice to Class Workers BUFFALO EXCHANGE: Renewed Class Cert Filing in Bryant Due Nov. 7 CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Parties Seek Class Certification CAMBA: Jimenez Suit Seeks for Rule 23 Class Certification CAMPERS INN RV: Campuzan Files Suit in M.D. Florida CAPITAL ONE: Bid for Class Cert in Shah Suit Due Jan. 19, 2026 CAPITAL VISION: Court Adopts Amended Response to Class Cert Bid CARDINAL SERVICES: Dean Files Suit in D. Oregon CCBILL LLC: Doe Sues Over Illegal Business Practices CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Sansone Appeals Denied Reconsideration Bid CHEMOURS CO: Wins Bid for Protective Order CLEARWAY SITEWORK: Zavala Sues to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Class Settlement in Rebecca Gets Initial Nod COMPASS INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Cribier Due May 11, 2026 COMPUTERSHARE INC: Bid to Consolidate Two Actions Partly OK'd COOPERSURGICAL INC: Bid to Strike Class Allegations OK'd in Part CORNWELL QUALITY: Faces Holcomb Suit Over Private Data Breach COTTAGES WI: WWPCL Class Gets Certification in Tessmer Lawsuit CPA GLOBAL: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bids DAVID SALINAS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 21, 2025 DISCORD INC: Nguyen Sues Over Failure to Properly Secure PII DRAGONETTI BROTHERS: Stabile Appeals Ruling to N.Y. Appellate Div. EARTHGRAINS DISTRIBUTION: Class Cert Bid Filing Vacated ENOVIX CORPORATION: Bid for Partial Judgment on Pleadings Granted EPOCH EVERLASTING: Jackson-Jones Seeks Class Certification EPOCH EVERLASTING: Seeks OK of Bid to Seal Class Cert Motion EUROMARKET DESIGNS: Williams Seeks Leave to Amend Class Complaint EXP REALTY: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Usanovic Due Nov. 21 FACTORY MUTUAL: $750,000 Settlement in Cure Suit Gets Initial Nod FOOD VENTURES: Robinson Suit Removed to C.D. California FOREST RIVER: Class Cert Hearing in Nelson Reset for Nov. 12 FOREST ROAD: Reilly Appeals Suit Dismissal to Del. Supreme Court FREE FLY FISHING: Evans Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GARY MUSSELWHITE: McCoy Bid to Certify Class Tossed GENERAL MOTORS: Ginn Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal GENERAL MOTORS: Ginn Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class GERARD VAN DE POL: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 28, 2026 GFA ALABAMA: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response GIGACLOUD TECH: Settlement Class in Thomas Gets Certification GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY: Settlement Class Gets Certification GMAP LOGISTICS: Severino Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action GOLDEN UNICORN: Valencia Sues Over Website's Inaccessibility GOLO LLC: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Bubak Consumer Suit GRACO CHILDREN'S: Court Vacates Sept. 30, 2025 Class Order GROCERY DELIVERY: Salvant Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia HARMONY DESIGNS: Valencia Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HAUPPAUGE BAGEL: Valle Sues to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages HB FULLER: Rouse Bid for Attys' Fees Partly OK'd HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Reading Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE: Caston Suit to Proceed vs Genentech HOME DEPOT: Class Settlement in Dalton Suit Gets Initial Nod HOMER DELOACH: Williams Bid for Class Cert Tossed HOSPITAL SISTERS: Parties Seeks More Time to File Reply Docs HYUNDAI MOTOR: Court Consolidates Hageman & Bal Cases HYUNDAI MOTOR: Hageman Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Under Seal HYUNDAI MOTOR: Hageman Suit Seeks to Certify Class ILLINOIS: Seeks Denial of Kainz Class Certification Bid INTERNATIONAL GAME: Loescher Failure to Secure PII and PHI ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Standing Order Entered in St. John J.M. SMUCKER: Ringler Suit Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order JOHNSON CONTROLS: $17.5MM Settlement in Novin Gets Initial Nod JONATHAN SIMKHAI: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website JOSHINE INC: Prinsloo Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California JUVIA'S PLACE: Ford Sues Over Website's Non-Compliance With ADA JW PEI: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Martinez Suit Claims KENDALL VILLAGE: Pardo Sues Over Property's ADA Violations L'OREAL USA: Kim Sues Over False and Misleading Email Marketing LEPRINO FOODS: $220,000 Settlement in Dominguez Gets Initial Nod LINKEDIN CORP: Court Narrows Claims in J.P. Suit LINKEDIN CORP: Court Narrows Claims in L.B. Suit LINKEDIN CORP: Court Narrows Claims in V.R. Suit LOCKTON COMPANIES: Bid to Amend Case Schedule Partly OK'd LOWE'S HOME: Amended Pleadings in Garner Suit Due April 21, 2026 MALIBU BOATS: Class Settlement in RBTCB Suit Gets Initial Nod MARK CUBAN: Bid to Certify Class in Robertson Tossed w/o Prejudice MERANI HOSPITALITY: Fabiano Alleges Labor Law Violations MICHIGAN: Appeals Court Order in Bruneau Suit to Court of Appeals MICHIGAN: Appeals Court Order in Fagan Suit to Court of Appeals MICHIGAN: Appeals Court Order in Krieger Suit to Court of Appeals MICHIGAN: Appeals Court Order in Zelenak Suit to Court of Appeals MICHIGAN: Appeals Pleasant Beach Suit Ruling to Court of Appeals MONTEREY COUNTY, CA: Bid to Enforce Settlement Deal Denied NEW YORK, NY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Miller Due Sept. 15, 2026 NEW YORK: Cymbler Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit NEW YORK: Seeks to Hold Dunn's Bid for Class Certification OPW FUELING: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Response PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Discovery Cutoff Extended in Kuhk Suit POWER HOME: Landy Wins Class Cert Bid RDO EQUIPMENT: Munoz Seeks Final OK of $2.04MM Settlement RED TIE: Class Cert Hearing in Sandell Suit Due March 27, 2026 RICHMOND, IN: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Craig Suit to 7th Cir. SAFEWAY INC: Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Due March 20, 2026 SALT LAKE CITY, UT: 10th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Jacobs Suit SAPUTO INC: Filing for Collective & Class Cert Due Oct. 1, 2026 SEAN REEVES: Convisser Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action SEYBOTH TEAM: Iudiciani Suit Seeks Class Certification SOURCE USA: Jimenez Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Text Messages SPORTSENGINE INC: Morales Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit STAKE CENTER: Bid to Certify Class Referred to Magistrate Judge TONYA ANDREWS: Petitioner Must File Bid for Aleman Bond Hearing TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Cert. Bid in Mixon Suit Due Nov. 19, 2026 TOYOTA MOTOR: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Dong Due Dec. 19 TOYOTA MOTOR: Seeks to Dismiss Wade Amended Complaint TRADER JOE'S: Class Cert Bid Filing in Gazonni Due Feb. 23, 2026 TRANS UNION: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Docs in Kaplan Suit TRIVIUM ALUMINUM: Herns Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages TS DINING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, James Suit Alleges UNITED STATES: Doster Files Writ of Certiorari Petition to Sup. Ct. UNITED STATES: Fogg Appeals Denied Reconsideration Bid to D.C. Cir. UNITED STATES: Jones Balks at Illegal Community Service Program VAN BUREN, MI: 6th Cir. Affirms Class Deal in Wayside Church Suit WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Green Sues Over Unprotected Private Info ZONI LANGUAGE: Ortega Conditional Cert Bid Partly OK'd ********* 2K GAMES: Plaintiff Seeks to File Exhibits Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.A., a minor, represented by his mother and next friend Andrea Deams, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. 2K Games, Inc., and Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-05961-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order permitting the Plaintiff to file conditionally under seal the exhibits and portions of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff's motion and the identified exhibits attached to the declaration of Julie C. Erickson contain information that the Defendants have designated as "CONFIDENTIAL." In filing this motion, the Plaintiff does not agree that the information contained within these exhibits or referenced within the motion meet the criteria for sealing in this Court and reserves the right to further respond should the Defendants request sealing. 2K develops and publishes video games. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Yovy4h at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julie c. Erickson, Esq. Elizabeth A. Kramer, Esq. Kevin M. Osborne, Esq. ERICKSON KRAMER OSBORNE LLP 959 Natoma Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 635-0631 Facsimile: (415) 599-8088 E-mail: julie@eko.law elizabeth@eko.law kevin@eko.law 5.11 INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Tate Suit Due Jan. 16, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER TATE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 5.11, INC., Case No. 8:24-cv-02327-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Holcomb entered an order denying stipulation to stay action pending mediation and extending schedule on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: The Court has received and reviewed the parties' stipulation for a stay pending mediation. The Court finds that a stay is warranted, but it will extend by 90 days the hearing and briefing schedule on the Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification. Accordingly, it is ordered as follows: 1. The parties' stipulation is denied. 2. However, the hearing and briefing schedule on the Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification is extended as follows: a. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a class certification motion is Jan. 16, 2026. b. The Defendant's deadline to file an opposition is Feb. 13, 2026. c. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply in support of his class certification is Mar. 13, 2026; and d. The hearing on the Plaintiff's class certification motion is set for Mar. 31, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. The Defendant manufactures apparel products. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uZlZIY at no extra charge.[CC] ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Allowed Leave to File Renewed Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONDALISA LEGRAND, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Case No. 3:22-cv-05815-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hixson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a renewed motion for class certification. The Plaintiff shall file her renewed motion in substantially the same form as the renewed motion for class certification attached to her motion for leave to file a renewed class certification motion, with a hearing date properly noticed pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7. While Plaintiff's motion comes after the deadline for filing a class certification motion, the Court finds she has established good cause to modify the case schedule under Rule 16. On Sept. 11, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for class certification. However, as the deadline to move for class certification had passed and the Plaintiff did not seek leave to file a renewed motion, the Court struck the renewed motion and ordered the parties to meet and confer to determine if they could agree to permit the Plaintiff to file a renewed motion. The Plaintiff filed the present motion on Sept. 19, 2025. The Plaintiff argues leave to file a renewed motion should be granted because she has "worked diligently to supplement the record to specifically address the evidentiary deficiencies related to damages that led the Court to initially deny class certification," and "permitting the motion also promotes judicial and party efficiency, as the alternative is a trial on Plaintiff's individual claims, followed by appeals on Rule 12 and class certification issues, and possible re-trial on a class basis, in addition to a newly filed class action by another representative to protect the timeliness of the Class’s claims." The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against Abbott, alleging certain statements on the labels of Abbott's Ensure (TM) nutrition drinks are false and misleading. Abbott is an American multinational healthcare company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JMWQqh at no extra charge.[CC] AERO COSMETICS: Standing Order Entered in Schmitman Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRAIG SCHMITMAN, v. AERO COSMETICS PRODUCTS, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-09205-AH-MBK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hwang entered a standing order for civil cases as follows: All counsel must immediately review and comply with the Court’s Civility and Professionalism Guidelines, available at http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/attorneys/admissions/civility-and-professionalism guidelines. Parties appearing as pro se litigants are required to comply with all Local Rules, including Local Rule 16. Only individuals may represent themselves. Only one attorney for a party may be designated as lead counsel (and the designation must appear on the docket if a party has more than one attorney). Neither counsel nor a party shall initiate contact with the Court or its Chambers’ staff by telephone, or by any other improper ex parte means. Counsel may contact the CRD with appropriate inquiries. Counsel must advise the Court immediately if (1) the case or any pending matter has been resolved or (2) a motion is pending, and the parties are engaged in serious negotiations that appear likely to resolve the case or the pending motion. Aero offers a wide range of car care products. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GZFsfp at no extra charge.[CC] AG-PRO LLC: Lioces Seeks to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN LIOCES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AG-PRO, LLC, and AG-PRO OHIO, LLC, Case No. 7:25-cv-00009-WLS (M.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his unopposed motion to conditionally certify a collective action and to issue notice. The Plaintiff filed this action on Jan. 13, 2025, alleging that the Defendants misclassified him and certain other inside salespersons (collectively, the "Proposed Collective") as exempt in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff was previously employed by Ag-Pro Ohio as a salesperson. On May 15, 2024, Plaintiff began his employment with Ag-Pro Ohio as an inside salesperson. The Defendants classified members of the Proposed Collective as exempt from the overtime pay requirement under the FLSA, and, as such, members of the Proposed Collective were not paid overtime premiums for hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek. Ag-Pro provides a wide range of agricultural equipment. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EbjexN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq. Kathleen R. Harris, Esq. TITTLE & PERLMUTER 4106 Bridge Ave. Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 308-1522 Facsimile: (888) 604-9299 E-mail: scott@tittlelawfirm.com katie@tittlelawfirm.com - and - Shaun C. Southworth, Esq. SOUTHWORTH PC 1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 585-8095 Facsimile: (404) 393-4129 E-mail: shaun@southworthpc.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher St NW, Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (234) 401-9136 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlablorlaw.com AGA SERVICE: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Response ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Herssein v. AGA Service Company, et al., Case No. 0:25-cv-60256 (S.D. Fla., Filed Feb. 12, 2025), the Hon. Judge Rodney Smith entered an order granting Plaintiff's unopposed motion for enlargement of time to file motion for class certification. The Plaintiff shall file his Motion for Class Certification on or before October 31, 2025. The nature of suit states Diversity-Fraud. The Defendant is an electrical installation company.[CC] AMERICAN ACCOUNTS: Bids for Class Certification Due April 3, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY BLUM, v. AMERICAN ACCOUNTS & ADVISERS, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00367-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Anita Marie Boor entered a preliminary pretrial conference order as follows: 1. Amendments to the pleadings: Dec. 9, 2025 2. Motions on class certification: April 3, 2026 3. Disclosure of experts: Proponent: June 11, 2026 Respondent: July 16, 2026 4. Deadline for filing dispositive motions: Sept. 17, 2026 5. Discovery cutoff: Jan. 8, 2027 6. Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and all motions in limine: Jan. 22, 2027 Objections: Feb. 5, 2027 7. First Final Pretrial Conference: Feb. 17, 2027 at 2:30 p.m. Second Final Pretrial Conference: Feb. 14, 2027 at 2:30 p.m. 8. Trial: March 1, 2027 at 9:00 a.m. American is a national collection agency and billing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RR2lHa at no extra charge.[CC] ASC ENGINEERED: Jamison Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA JAMISON, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASC ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS, LLC, a limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11310 (N.D. Ill., September 18, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Jamison works for Defendant since approximately 2007 through the present, as a non-exempt, hourly employee. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week, and were allegedly paid some overtime for those hours, but at a rate that did not include Defendant's shift differentials as required by the FLSA, says the suit. Headquartered in DuPage County, Illinois, ASC Engineered Solutions, LLC provides precision-engineered pipe joining products, valves, and related services for an entire construction project. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Meghan Higday, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com mh@melmedlaw.com BACKYARD KIDS: Ford Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA FORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Backyard Kids, LLC, Defendant, Case No: 1:25-cv-11307 (N.D. Ill., September 18, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Headquartered in Monroe, MI, Backyard Kids, LLC owns and operates the website, Kidkraft.com, which offers wooden toys, playsets, and children’s furniture for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law BELFOR USA: $1.6MM Class Settlement in Rodriguez Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD RODRIGUEZ, v. BELFOR USA GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-02071-VKD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi entered an order granting motion for final approval of settlement and motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and a class representative enhancement payment: 1. The order adopts and incorporates by reference the terms and conditions of the Amended Joint Stipulation of Class, Collective, and PAGA Action Settlement and Release, together with the definitions and terms used and contained therein. 2. Final approval shall be with respect to California class members defined as: "All persons who were employed by defendants in the State of California in non-exempt positions at any time during the period from Feb. 25, 2018 to May 21, 2025. 3. Final approval shall be with respect to all the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") opt in claimants: "All persons who were employed by defendants in the United States of America in non-exempt positions at any time during the period from Feb. 25, 2019 to May 21, 2025, and who opted in to the FLSA settlement." 4. Final approval shall be with respect to California Private Attorneys General Act, et seq. ("PAGA") members defined as: "All persons who were employed by defendants in the State of California in non-exempt positions at any time during the period from March 8, 2021 through May 21, 2025." 5. The Court finds that the requested award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $300,000, or 18.5% of the common fund created by the settlement, is reasonable and awards the requested amount. 6. The Court finds that the requested costs of $27,813.74 are fair and reasonable and awards the requested amount. 7. The Court awards Mr. Rodriguez a class representative enhancement payment of $10,000 for his service on behalf of the settlement class. In sum, the parties have agreed to a non-reversionary settlement for a release of claims in return for a gross settlement amount of $1,622,000 to be distributed amongst the members of the three employee categories, their attorneys, the settlement administrator, and Mr. Rodriguez. Belfor provides property recovery and restoration services for properties damaged by natural disasters, such as fires and floods, on a nationwide basis. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z6fIlE at no extra charge.[CC] BENEFITS NOW: Bid for Leave to Conduct Class Cert Discovery OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE BUTLER RASHLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BENEFITS NOW, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-10398-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Terrence Berg entered an order granting motion for leave to conduct class certification discovery: Accordingly, the Court grants leave to conduct limited class certification discovery as requested. Should any relevant third parties object to Plaintiff's discovery requests, the Court will then address the issue of the requests' scope and propriety. Additionally, the Plaintiff is directed to file a proposed scheduling order within 7 days of the date of this Order allowing for a discovery period not to exceed 120 days and setting dispositive motion dates within 30 days of the close of discovery. On Feb. 10, 2025, Rashley filed a class action Complaint against the Benefits Now, LLC, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") on behalf of Rashley and "the National Do Not Call Registry Class." Rashley has proposed a class of: "All persons in the United States whose (1) residential telephone numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 31 days, (2) but who received more than one telemarketing call from or on behalf of Defendant, (3) within a 12-month period, (4) at any time in the period that begins four years before the date of filing this Complaint to trial." After the Defendant failed to appear or defend against the allegations, Rashley filed a Motion for Clerk's Entry of Default, which was granted on April 24, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AOHWnH at no extra charge.[CC] BLUESKY HEALTHCARE: Garcia Seeks Rule 23 Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MADISON GARCIA, v. BLUESKY HEALTHCARE INC., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01617-CEF (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting Plaintiff's motion For Rule 23 Certification of a State-Law Class. The Court conditionally certified a collective action class of non-exempt hourly employees of the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiffs move the Court to certify a factually-related state-law class under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) for the same group of employees. The Plaintiff asks the Court to designate Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel and appoint Named Plaintiff Madison Garcia as class representative. Points and authorities supporting the requested Rule 23 certification are submitted in the attached Memorandum. Bluesky provides inpatient nursing and rehabilitative services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gtgDEp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq. TITTLE & PERLMUTER 4106 Bridge Ave. Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 222-2222 Facsimile: (888) 604-9299 E-mail: scott@tittlelawfirm.com BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Class Cert Hearing Set for June 16, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Valencia v. Boehringer Ingelheim Fremont, Inc. Case No. 3:25-cv-05491-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered a case management and scheduling order: Trial date: Feb. 7, 2028 Final pretrial conference: Dec. 16, 2027 Expert discovery cut-off: June 25, 2027 Last day to hear motion for class certification Last day to be heard: June 16, 2026 Replies: May 8, 2026 Opposition due: May 1, 2026 Initial disclosures due: Oct. 23, 2025 Boehringer is a construction services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yfDraI at no extra charge.[CC] BRAZOS VALLEY: Class Cert. Hearing in Fazzino Suit Set for Dec. 25 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAZZINO INVESTMENTS, LP, v. BRAZOS VALLEY GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, Case No. 6:25-cv-00001-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Derek Gilliland entered an order setting class certification hearing held in person. The above entitled and numbered case is set for class certification hearing held in person, in U.S. District Court, Courtroom No. 2, Third Floor, 800 Franklin Avenue, Waco, Texas, on Monday, Dec. 15, 2025, at 02:00 PM (3 hour time block). Brazos manages groundwater resources in Brazos and Robertson counties. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rap3Fm at no extra charge.[CC] BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Martin Appeals Class Cert. Order to 2nd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE E. MARTIN is taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part his motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Lawrence E. Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02923-MMG, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. On Sept. 12, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Margaret M. Garnett granted in part and denied in part. The Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for class certification as to the Plaintiff's claim for breach of contract based on the Defendant's alleged failure to decrease Cost of Insurance (COI) rates. The Court appointed Plaintiff Lawrence E. Martin as class representative and Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC as class counsel. The Court denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification as to his claim for breach of contract based on a failure to review COI rates, and for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The appellate case is entitled Lawrence E. Martin v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company, Case No. 25-2498, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 9, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner LAWRENCE E. MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Andrei V. Rado, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ANDREI RADO PLLC 99 Wall Street, Suite 1343 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (646) 915-0515 - and - Mitchell M. Breit, Esq. Tyler Litke, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (347) 668-8445 Defendant-Respondent BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Stacey Jill Rappaport, Esq. MILBANK LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 530-5000 Facsimile: (212) 822-5347 Email: srappaport@milbank.com - and - Carl Louis Rizzi, Esq. MILBANK LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 530-5786 Email: crizzi@milbank.com - and - Jonathan Daniel Lamberti, Esq. MILBANK LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 530-5000 Facsimile: (212) 530-5219 Email: Jlamberti@milbank.com BROOKLYN BEDDING: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 28, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BROOKLYN BEDDING LLC and NIGHT US LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-03781-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order granting the Parties' stipulation, and setting the following case schedule through class certification: Case Event Deadline Fact Discovery Cutoff: Jan. 12, 2026 Motion for Class Certification: Jan. 28, 2026 Opposition(s) to Class Certification: March 25, 2026 Class Certification Reply: April 15, 2026 Class Certification Hearing: May 12, 2026 Brooklyn operates as a home furnishing store. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wpJPIM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Franzini, Esq. Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: simon@dovel.com jonas@dovel.com grace@dovel.com The Defendants are represented by: Ana Tagvoryan, Esq. Harrison Brown, Esq. Erica R. Graves, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 885-5001 - and - Christine Reilly, Esq. Justin Jones Rodriguez, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 312-4000 BROOKSIDE FARMS: Whittle Seeks Approval of Notice to Class Workers ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CELESTE WHITTLE; J.S.J., a minor child by Celeste Whittle, Parent and Next Friend; A.V.S., a minor child by Celeste Whittle, Parent and Next Friend; JESSE SERRANO; ESPERANZA  SERRANO; HORACIO SERRANO; on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. BROOKSIDE FARMS, LLC; WILLIAM G. FRITZ (individually); JOSH FRITZ (individually); Case No. 1:25-cv-00713-HYJ-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting amended opposed motion for approval of notice to similarly situated workers pursuant to 29 u.s.c. section 216(b) and an order to produce contact information: On July 3rd, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Approval of Notice to Similarly Situated Workers pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and An Order to produce contact information. The Plaintiffs file this Amended Motion to comply with Local Rule 7.1(d)(i) to inform the Court that this Motion is opposed. The Motion is otherwise unaltered. The Plaintiffs request that the Court authorize Plaintiffs’ counsel to distribute the proposed notice and consent to sue form to all similarly situated workers, defined as: "All U.S. workers (as that term is defined at 20 C.F.R. section 655.103) who worked more than 40 hours in at least one workweek in which they were employed by the Defendants to perform any job task listed in an H-2A clearance order which authorized work on Brookside Farms, or any job task actually performed by any H-2A worker at Brookside Farms, from June 26, 2022 to present." The Plaintiffs also request that the Court order the Defendant to provide the Plaintiffs with the full name, all known physical addresses (including permanent addresses), telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses for each similarly situated worker. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to toll the statute of limitations for similarly situated workers from the filing of this motion until the end of the opt-in period. Brookside is a family-owned fruit farm specializing in blueberries and other seasonal offerings. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M0fsrZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ilina Krishen, Esq. Melissa Moeinvaziri, Esq. FARMWORKER LEGAL SERVICES, A Division of Michigan Advocacy Program 350 E Michigan Ave, Suite 310 Kalamazoo MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 492-7190 E-mail: ikrishen@farmworkerlaw.org mmoeinvaziri@farmworkerlaw.org - and - Dave Mauch, Esq. TEXAS RIOGRANDE LEGAL AID, INC. 121 S. Main St., Ste. 300 Victoria, TX 77901 Telephone: (361) 237-1681 Facsimile: (956) 591-8752 E-mail: dmauch@trla.org BUFFALO EXCHANGE: Renewed Class Cert Filing in Bryant Due Nov. 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bryant et al., v. Buffalo Exchange, LTD., Case No. 1:23-cv-08286-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting request for an extension of the deadline to file response to Defendant's second motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, and an adjournment of deadlines for the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. Due to competing litigation deadlines in other matters and planned time off, Plaintiffs request an extension of their deadline to respond to Defendant’s Second Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings from the original date of October 10, 2025 to October 24, 2025. Defendant does not object to this request. In the interests of conserving resources, Plaintiffs request that their deadline to file a renewed motion for class certification is adjourned to 21 days after the Court’s decision on Defendant’s Second Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings. In the alternative, if the Court will not grant an adjournment, Plaintiffs request a two- week extension of their deadlines for their renewed motion for class certification, as follows: Deadline Date The Plaintiffs' renewed class Nov. 7, 2025 certification motion: The Defendant's opposition: Nov. 21, 2025 The Plaintiffs' reply: Dec. 2, 20251 In light of competing litigation deadlines in other matters and planned time off, this extension will allow Plaintiffs adequate time to prepare their response to Defendant’s Second Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings and to prepare their renewed motion for class certification. This is Plaintiffs' first request for an adjournment or extension for Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. Defendant does not consent to this request. On Nov. 11, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On Sept. 26, 2025, the Defendant filed its second motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. Buffalo is engaged in the retail sale of women's ready-to-wear clothing. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0Cb9xm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Molly Brooks, Esq. Amy Maurer, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Ave., 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Parties Seek Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MADISON FISK, RAQUEL CASTRO, GRETA CASTRILLON, CLARE BOTTERILL, MAYA BROSCH, HELEN BAUER, CARINA CLARK, NATALIE FIGUEROA, ERICA GROTEGEER, KAITLIN HERI, OLIVIA PETRINE, AISHA WATT, KAMRYN WHITWORTH, SARA ABSTEN, ELEANOR DAVIES, ALEXA DIETZ, and LARISA SULCS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY and SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 3:22-cv-00173-TWR-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties, at 1:30 p.m. on Nov. 20, 2025, will move the Court for class certification, preliminary approval of the parties' class action settlement, approval of class notice, and for the entry of the Proposed Order included herewith. Board of trustees adopts regulations and policies governing the entire CSU system. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sbTEnT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Arthur H. Bryant, Esq. ARTHUR BRYANT LAW, P.C. 1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 391-5454 E-mail: arthur@arthurbryantlaw.com - and - Lori Bullock, Esq. BULLOCK LAW PLLC 309 East 5th St., Suite 202B Des Moines, IA 50309 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 E-mail: lbullock@bullocklawpllc.com - and - David S. Casey, Jr., Esq. Gayle M. Blatt, Esq. CASEY GERRY FRANCAVILLA BLATT LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1811 E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com gmb@cglaw.com - and - Amber Eck, Esq. Jenna Rangel, Esq. HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP 225 Broadway, Ste 2050 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 342-8000 E-mail: ambere@haelaw.com jennar@haelaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Brian M. Schwartz, Esq. Scott R. Eldridge, Esq. Erika L. Giroux, Esq. Ashley N. Higginson, Esq. MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, P.L.C. 150 West Jefferson, Suite 2500 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 963-6420 E-mail: schwartzb@millercanfield.com eldridge@millercanfield.com giroux@millercanfield.com higginson@millercanfield.com - and - Rob Bonta, Esq. Jodi L. Cleesattle, Esq. Jennifer L. Santa Maria, Esq. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA 600 West Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 738-9099 Facsimile: (619) 645-2012 E-mail: Jennifer.SantaMaria@doj.ca.gov CAMBA: Jimenez Suit Seeks for Rule 23 Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENNIS JIMENEZ, BARBRA MARTINEZ, EDMUND SKINNER, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. CAMBA, and CHV 560 WINTHROP STREET LP, Case No. 1:25-cv-05625-PKC-SDE (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs request certification of a class consisting of the following individuals: "All residents of CAMBA supportive housing programs, who are currently in rental arrears or have been sued in nonpayment eviction proceedings since Jan. 1, 2024, or who may in the future fall into rental arrears or be sued in nonpayment eviction proceedings." This action meets the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). 3. This action further meets the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), in that the defendant opposing the plaintiff's proposed class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IQGgef at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Judith Goldiner, Esq. Edward Josephson, Esq. Pavita Krishnaswamy, Esq. Ellen Davidson, Esq. Nicholas Berghall, Esq. THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY 49 Thomas Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 298-5221 E-mail: jgoldiner@legal-aid.org ejosephson@legal-aid.org CAMPERS INN RV: Campuzan Files Suit in M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Campers Inn RV of Jacksonville North Inc. The case is styled as George Campuzan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Campers Inn RV of Jacksonville North Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-01235 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 14, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Campers Inn RV -- https://campersinn.net/ -- is the nation's largest family-operated RV dealer with multiple locations across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (954) 647-1866 Email: mweekes@milberg.com CAPITAL ONE: Bid for Class Cert in Shah Suit Due Jan. 19, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shah, et al. v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Case No. 3:24-cv-05985 (N.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 26, 2024), the Hon. Judge Trina L. Thompson entered an order re: the Parties have proposed deadlines for the Plaintiffs' forthcoming motion for class certification. I -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be due on Jan. 19, 2026. -- Capital One's opposition shall be due on March 6, 2026. -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for class certification shall be due on April 6, 2026. -- The Certification Hearing set for April 21, 2026 02:00 PM (in person) is maintained. The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Default. Capital is an American bank holding company.[CC] CAPITAL VISION: Court Adopts Amended Response to Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BYRON ESPANOL, v. CAPITAL VISION SERVICES LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-01024-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Byron entered an order as follows: 1. The parties' joint motion to file excess pages in relation to class certification briefing is granted. a. The Court adopts the Defendant's amended response to motion for class certification as the operative response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. b. The Plaintiff may file a reply to the Defendant's amended response to motion for class certification that shall not exceed twelve pages in length, inclusive of all parts. 2. The Defendant's notice of filing is stricken. On Aug. 29, 2025, the Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification. On Oct. 5, 2025, the Defendant timely filed its response in opposition thereto. Capital provides optometric and retail optical services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x50JbA at no extra charge.[CC] CARDINAL SERVICES: Dean Files Suit in D. Oregon ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cardinal Services, Inc. The case is styled as Lon Dean, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cardinal Services, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-01876-AA (N.D. Fla., Oct. 13, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury. Cardinal Services -- https://cardinalservices.org/ -- has provided life-changing services for children, families, and adults with disabilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kaleigh Boyd, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Ave., Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 682-5600 Email: kboyd@tousley.com CCBILL LLC: Doe Sues Over Illegal Business Practices ---------------------------------------------------- Jane Doe No. 1, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and Jane Doe No. 2, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Jane Doe No. 3, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CCBILL, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; EPOCH.COM, LLC, a California limited liability company, FIRST DATA MERCHANT SERVICES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; TOTAL SYSTEM SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware corporation, and BANK DOE(S) 1 - 10, inclusive; Case No. 3:25-cv-02721-AGS-KSC (S.D. Cal., Oct. 13, 2025), is brought as a result of the Defendants' illegal business practices. From 2007 until October 2019, Michael Pratt, Matthew Wolfe, Douglas Wiederhold, and Andre Garcia operated a sex trafficking venture known as "GirlsDoPorn." During this time, GirlsDoPorn used a combination of force, fraud, and coercion to get more than five hundred high school and college-aged women to fly to San Diego, California under false pretenses to film pornographic videos. GirlsDoPorn was undoubtedly a "sex trafficking venture" within the meaning of Sections 1591 and 1595. Nevertheless, from 2009 until 2019, Defendants knowingly participated in the sex trafficking venture by using its payment network to process payments for the illegal videos on GirlsDoPorn's websites, generating millions in fees for themselves and tens of millions for GirlsDoPorn. By doing so, Defendants turned the victims' sex acts into "commercial sex acts," a crucial element of sex trafficking under Section 1591. Without Defendants' payment network, GirlsDoPorn would have never been able to exist. As the years went by, Defendants ignored dozens of red flags indicating GirlsDoPorn was a sex trafficking venture. By 2017, Defendants could no longer feign ignorance of GirlsDoPorn's illegal business practices because the plaintiffs in the State Court Action served Defendants with a subpoena seeking records related to GirlsDoPorn. Even after gaining knowledge of the allegations and evidence in the State Court Action, Defendants kept processing payments for the illegal videos until October 2019, when the Department of Justice arrested everyone involved with GirlsDoPorn and took the websites offline. Only then did Defendants stop processing payments for GirlsDoPorn, but it was not by choice. Any ignorance Defendants may have had to GirlsDoPorn's illegal business practices prior to October 2019 is a direct result of Defendants' own negligence, recklessness, or willful desire to remain ignorant, which is no defense under Section 1595. Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants on behalf of themselves and the GirlsDoPorn Class, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were trafficked by GirlsDoPorn within the last ten years. CCBill, LLC is a limited liability company incorporated in the State of Arizona with its principal place of business located in Tempe, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian M. Holm, Esq. HOLM LAW GROUP, PC 171 Saxony Road, Suite 203 Encinitas, CA 92024 Phone: 858.433.2001 Fax: 888.483.3323 Email: brian@holmlawgroup.com - and - John J. O'Brien, Esq. THORSNES BARTOLOTTA MCGUIRE, LLP 2550 Fifth Avenue, 11th Floor San Diego, CA 92103 Phone: 619.236.9363 Fax: 619.236.9653 Email: obrien@tbmlawyers.com - and - Christpher R. Dryden, Esq. James C. Huber, Esq. GLOBAL LEGAL LAW FIRM 322 Encinitas Boulevard, Ste 200 Encinitas, CA 92024 Phone: 888-846-8901 Fax: 888-846-8902 Email: cdryden@attorneygl.com jhuber@attorneygl.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Sansone Appeals Denied Reconsideration Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ JENNIFER M. SANSONE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part their motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled Jennifer M. Sansone, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Charter Communications, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-1880-WQH-JLB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court, County of San Diego, California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of California Labor Code and California's Unfair Competition Law. On May 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment, which Judge William Q. Hayes denied on Aug. 20, 2024. On Sept. 26, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration the Aug. 20 Order, which Judge Hayes granted in part and denied in part on Sept. 30, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Jennifer M. Sansone, et al. v. Charter Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-6450, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 13, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners JENNIFER M. SANSONE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: London D. Meservy, Esq. MESERVY LAW, PC 5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 779-1276 Email: london@meservylawpc.com - and - Justin A. Morello, Esq. MORELLO LAW, PC 2305 Historic Decatur Road, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92106 Telephone: (619) 277-4677 Email: justin@more11olawpc.com - and - Matthew S. Dente, Esq. DENTE LAW, PC 5060 Shoreham Place, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 550-3475 Email: matt@dentelaw.com Defendants-Respondents CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al. are represented by: Joseph W. Ozmer II, Esq. Paul G. Sherman, Esq. KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP 333 S. Grand Ave., Suite 2225 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 493-3980 Facsimile: (404) 400-7333 Email: jozmer@kcozlaw.com psherman@kcozlaw.com CHEMOURS CO: Wins Bid for Protective Order ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENT NIX, et al., v. THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, et al., Case No. 7:17-CV-189-D (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge James Dever III entered an order affirming Magistrate Judge Numbers's order granting defendants' motion for a protective order. The court rejects the Plaintiffs' arguments. The protective order relates to discovery because it prohibits reliance upon or further discovery on an expert report which is irrelevant to the claims or defenses at issue in the case. According to the Court, the Plaintiffs fail to establish that Magistrate Judge Numbers misinterpreted or misapplied applicable law. Thus, the court affirms Magistrate Judge Numbers's order. Alternatively, the court affirms Magistrate Judge Numbers's order because plaintiffs' appeal flagrantly violated this court's local rules. The Plaintiffs' notice of appeal violated Local Civil Rule 72.4(a)(2). The Plaintiffs did not seek leave of court to file their "corrected" notice of appeal. In short, the Plaintiffs trampled this court's local rules. The court expects more from counsel. The case concerns the discharge of wastewater allegedly containing perfluorinated compounds by E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company and The Chemours Company FC, LLC. On May 18, 2022, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. On Oct. 4, 2023, the court granted in part plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Chemours is a chemical manufacturing facility. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GVcTu3 at no extra charge.[CC] CLEARWAY SITEWORK: Zavala Sues to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Danilo Romero Zavala, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLEARWAY SITEWORK CORP., B. ROTUNDI CONST. CORP., and BRUNO ROTONDI, as an individual, Case No. 2:25-cv-05726 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2025), is brought against the Defendants to recover minimum wage and overtime wage and damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiff's employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff JOSE DANILO ROMERO ZAVALA worked 53 to 64 hours per week from October 2019 until March 2024, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. In April 2024, upon information and belief, Defendants began to compensate Plaintiff at time-and-a-half his regular rate of pay when Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Moreover, Plaintiff was not compensated at all by the Defendants for his first week of wages. Additionally, Defendants failed to fully compensate Plaintiff for all his wages owed during his last 8 work weeks. Due to Defendants' failure to pay any overtime wages and non-payment of Plaintiff's wages, Plaintiff suffered concrete harm and experienced a myriad of financial difficulties specifically in covering his regular expenses such as payment for his utility bills, food, transportation, and other expenses, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants at construction worker and laborer while performing other miscellaneous duties for the Defendants, from October 2019 until July 2025. CLEARWAY SITEWORK CORP., is a New York domestic business corporation, organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 Fax: 718-263-9598 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Class Settlement in Rebecca Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA M. McCUTCHEON and PAUL CAUFIELD, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-04170-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Schofield entered an order granting preliminary approval of the Parties' class action settlement and approving notice to the class. -- Consistent with the Court’s prior Class certification order, the Class definition in the Settlement Agreement is: "a non-opt-out class consisting only of the individuals (both the Participant and the Spouse, if any) identified on Attachment A to this Agreement, which reflect the Parties' best efforts to identify everyone who, as of Aug. 1, 2025, meets the following class definition previously certified by the Court: any person who, under any of Appendices B, C or D of the Plan, is entitled to a greater benefit than his or her Accrued Benefit as defined in Plan section 1.2, provided such person received a lump sum payment from the Plan, and the beneficiaries and estates of any such person." -- The proposed Settlement is preliminarily approved. -- The Court shall consider whether to give final approval to the settlement at a hearing on Jan. 12, 2026 at 2:30 P.M. Colgate-Palmolive is an American multinational consumer products company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9Y34QW at no extra charge.[CC] COMPASS INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Cribier Due May 11, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL CRIBIER, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. COMPASS, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-01833-BEN-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Torres entered a scheduling order regulating putative class discovery and setting deadline for motion for class certification: 1. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings shall be filed by Dec. 8, 2025. 2. Counsel shall appear for a remote Status Conference before Magistrate Judge Valerie E. Torres on Dec. 12, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. Instructions for remote appearances will be provided two (2) business days prior to the conference. 3. A Settlement Conference shall be conducted by Zoom video conferencing on Jan. 15, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Valerie E. Torres. 4. Fact and class discovery are not bifurcated; however, all discovery related to class certification must be completed by April 9, 2026. 5. The Plaintiffs must file a motion for class certification by May 11, 2026. 6. The Defendant shall file any opposition on or before July 10, 2026. 7. The Plaintiffs may file a reply on or before Aug. 10, 2026. Compass is a real estate technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KJuLNF at no extra charge.[CC] COMPUTERSHARE INC: Bid to Consolidate Two Actions Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIN ASHLEY SAULS, v. COMPUTERSHARE, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-03164-DAD-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale Drozd entered an order granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion to consolidate cases. Specifically, the Defendant seeks to consolidate the following two related cases pending against defendant and before the undersigned: "Sauls v. Computershare, Inc. (Case No. 2:24-cv-03164-DAD-AC) (the Class Action); and Sauls v. Computershare, Inc. (Case No. 2:25-cv-00048-DAD-AC) (the PAGA Action) The Defendant's motion to consolidate the cases is granted in part and denied in part as follows: a. The above-referenced cases shall be consolidated for purposes of discovery, pursuant to Rule 42(a); b. Should the parties wish to consolidate the cases for all purposes, including trial, they are directed to file further motions to consolidate these cases at a later time, and no earlier than when a motion for class certification is granted in the Class Action matter. The parties and the Clerk of the Court are directed to file documents under only the lead case number. Future captions should indicate the lead case number followed by the member case number as follows: Lead Case: 2:24-cv-03164-DAD-AC Member Case: 2:25-cv-00048-DAD-AC Having considered the parties' respective arguments, the court finds that the actions involve the same or similar parties, claims, and questions of fact or law, and that consolidation will avoid unnecessary costs and duplication of proceedings. The court is persuaded by plaintiff's argument, to which defendant presents no opposition, that consolidation should be limited for discovery purposes to allow the PAGA Action to proceed to trial and the Class Action to proceed to class certification. Thus, good cause exists to grant defendant's motion to consolidate these cases for purposes of discovery. Because defendant does not object to deferring on consolidation for purposes of trial, the court will deny without prejudice to refiling defendant's motion to consolidate for purposes of trial, the Court says. Computershare is a global financial services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aONeP1 at no extra charge.[CC] COOPERSURGICAL INC: Bid to Strike Class Allegations OK'd in Part ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as G. v. CooperSurgical, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00172 (D. Conn., Filed Feb. 4, 2025), the Hon. Judge Sarala V. Nagala entered an order granting in part and denying in part motion to strike class allegations. The Plaintiff asserts various personal injury and product liability claims on behalf of a putative nationwide class comprising "All individuals in the United States who had one or more embryos cultured using any of the lots of CooperSurgical's Global Media identified in the February 14, 2024, Class 2 Device Recall global Medium notice." In the alternative, the Plaintiff seeks to represent a subclass of Connecticut individuals who meet the same criteria. Motions to strike class allegations are therefore granted only in limited circumstances, such as where the motion is directed to an issue different from those that will be decided on a motion for class certification, or if it is apparent from the face of the complaint that it would be impossible to certify the alleged class regardless of the facts revealed during discovery. Rather, the Defendant seeks to strike the class allegations because it contends, primarily, that Plaintiff will not be able to meet the superiority requirement of Rule 23(a) and the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3), given that questions relating to liability and damages may affect individual class members in different ways and that there are variations in the state law that may be applicable here. But Plaintiff is correct that these issues should be decided at the Rule 23 stage after the parties have completed discovery. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability. CooperSurgical provides medical products.[CC] CORNWELL QUALITY: Faces Holcomb Suit Over Private Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- ALEC HOLCOMB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Cornwell Quality Tools Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01984-JPC (N.D. Ohio, September 18, 2025) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and other current and former customers and employees of Defendant. The data breach occurred on or about December 12, 2024. However, the Defendant's notice letter to Plaintiff and the Class Members was dated September 4, 2025 -- almost nine months after the data breach occurred. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access by a ransomware group and precisely what type of information was accessed. Moreover, Plaintiff also seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Columbus, OH, The Cornwell Quality Tools Company manufactures and sells automotive hand tools through a network of franchise dealers who operate mobile tool stores. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (800) 615-4946 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: service@eksm.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com COTTAGES WI: WWPCL Class Gets Certification in Tessmer Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKAYLA TESSMER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. COTTAGES WI, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01183-BBC (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Byron B. Conway entered an order as follows: 1. The Wisconsin Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WWPCL") Class pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23 is certified; 2. The Settlement Agreement and Release is approved as a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of a bona fide wage dispute as it applies to the WWPCL Class; 3. The Plaintiff Mikayla Tessmer is approved as Class Representative for the WWPCL Class; 4. Walcheske & Luzi, LLC is appointed as counsel for the WWPCL Class; 5. The Agreement is binding on the Parties; 6. The WWPCL Class Members' released claims are dismissed with prejudice; 7. The settlement payments to the WWPCL Class (as described in the Agreement) are approved; 8. The Defendant's counsel shall provide Plaintiff's counsel with settlement checks for the WWPCL Class within thirty (30) calendar days of this order; 9. Plaintiff’s counsel shall send the settlement checks to the WWPCL Class Members via U.S. Mail following receipt of the settlement checks from Defendant’s counsel; 10. The WWPCL Class shall have 90 calendar days from the date of mailing to cash their individual settlement checks, otherwise the individual settlement checks and amounts will revert to and be retained by Defendant; 11. Plaintiff's unopposed request for approval of her attorneys’ fees and case-related costs which the parties have stipulated and agreed are reasonable is granted; 12. Plaintiff's unopposed request for approval of her service award which the parties have stipulated and agreed is reasonable is granted; Cottages provides safe and affordable housing for seniors in Northeast Wisconsin. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RkqE7X at no extra charge.[CC] CPA GLOBAL: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bids ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRAINCHILD SURGICAL DEVICES, LLC, a New York limited liability company, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. CPA GLOBAL LIMITED a foreign entity formed under the laws of the Island of Jersey, Channel Islands, Case No. 1:21-cv-00554-RDA-LRV (E.D. Va.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for the response to the motion to seal and requiring that the Parties submit a joint memorandum by Dec. 5, 2025, in lieu of filing the response to the motion to seal and in lieu of piecemeal briefing concerning anticipated motions to seal that will be filed in connection with the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and associated briefing. Consistent with the Oct. 4, 2023, Order, the Parties propose that sealing motions and accompanying notices as required by Local Civil Rule 5 be filed contemporaneously with the forthcoming opposition and reply briefs. CPA provides general, legal, and intellectual property (IP) support services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kehiiT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan B. Abbott, Esq. Geoffrey A. Neri, Esq. Ethan J. Brown, Esq. BROWN NERI SMITH & KHAN, LLP 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2080 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 593-9890 Facsimile: (310) 593-9980 E-mail: Geoff@bnsklaw.com Ethan@bnsklaw.com Ryan@bnskaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Eric C. Lyttle, Esq Meghan M. McCaffrey, Esq. J. Matthew Hamann, Esq. Kyra Simon, Esq. Anthony P. Alden, Esq. Michael L. Fazio, Esq. Maria M. Mortenson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1300 I Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 538-8000 Facsimile: (202) 538-8100 E-mail: ericlyttle@quinnemanuel.com meghanmccaffrey@quinnemanuel.com matthewhamann@quinnemanuel.com kyrasimon@quinnemanuel.com anthonyalden@quinnemanuel.com michaelfazio@quinnemanuel.com mariamortenson@quinnemanuel.com DAVID SALINAS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Nov. 21, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER TAFT, et al., v. DAVID SALINAS, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00697-RSH-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Butcher entered an order granting joint motion to extend deadlines. Event Deadline Def.'s Resp. in Opp'n to Mot. to Compel: Nov. 21, 2025 Close of Business Zoom Hearing on Motion: Dec. 3,2025 2:00 PM Deadline to contact chambers re: Nov. 21, 2025 unresolved discovery disputes: Pl.'s deadline to file Mot. for class Nov. 21, 2025 Certification: Close of Business A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SAPlES at no extra charge.[CC] DISCORD INC: Nguyen Sues Over Failure to Properly Secure PII ------------------------------------------------------------ Thong Nguyen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DISCORD INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-08747 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 13, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII"), which may have included victims' names, username, IP addresses, purchase history limited purchase history, limited billing information such as payment type, last four digits of credit card. The Defendant failed to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain PII. The Plaintiff seeks, among other things, orders requiring the Defendant to fully and accurately disclose the nature of the information that has been compromised and to adopt sufficient security practices and safeguards to prevent incidents like the disclosure (the "Data Breach") in the future. The Defendant discovered a data breach on October 3, 2025, that had occurred exposing the PII of millions of the Defendant's U.S. consumers (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant knowingly obtained sensitive PII and had a resulting duty to securely maintain that information in confidence. The Plaintiff and Class Members would not have provided their PII to Defendant if they had known that the Defendant would not ensure that it used adequate security measures. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals whose PII was exposed in the Data Breach. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensation for time spent responding to the Data Breach and other types of harm, free credit monitoring and identity theft insurance, and injunctive relief including substantial improvements to the Defendant's data security policies and practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff had an account with the Defendant and/or its affiliates. The Defendant is a privately owned American communication and social media platform and accumulates highly private PII of its customers, which is used to engage in its business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com - and - William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340 Truist Place Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: 813-500-1500 Email: billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com DRAGONETTI BROTHERS: Stabile Appeals Ruling to N.Y. Appellate Div. ------------------------------------------------------------------ JESSE STABILE is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Jesse Stabile, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dragonetti Brothers Landscaping Nursery & Florist, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 155071/2023, in the lower court of New York. The case type is stated as Civil Action – General. The appellate case is entitled Jesse Stabile, et al. vs. Dragonetti Brothers Landscaping Nursery & Florist, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-05902, in the First Judicial Department of New York Appellate Division, filed on October 14, 2025. [BN] Defendants-Respondents DRAGONETTI BROTHERS LANDSCAPING NURSERY & FLORIST, INC., et al. are represented by: Adam Casimir Weiss, Esq. LAW FIRM OF ADAM C. WEISS, PLLC 3 School Street, Suite 303 Glen Cove, NY 11542 Telephone: (516) 277-2323 EARTHGRAINS DISTRIBUTION: Class Cert Bid Filing Vacated ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TLALOC MUNOZ, MIGUEL RUIZ, EDGAR CORONA, and STEVEN SNAVELY, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. EARTHGRAINS DISTRIBUTION, LLC and BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01269-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Battaglia entered an order denying the Parties' joint motion as premature and vacating deadline file motion for class certification. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion without prejudice as premature. In light of the pending motion for summary judgment, the Court vacates the deadline for Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification until resolution of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Earthgrains is a food production company, specializing in the creation of a variety of baked goods. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MzJ7wU at no extra charge.[CC] ENOVIX CORPORATION: Bid for Partial Judgment on Pleadings Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE ENOVIX CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-00071-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered an order granting motion for partial judgment on the pleadings: The case management conference remains on calendar for Oct. 17, 2025. In their joint case management statement, the parties shall address resuming the briefing schedule on plaintiffs’ pending motion for class certification. Rust's statements in September 2021 that the qualification was "going on quite well" was not misleading for failing to affirmatively state that the equipment had, prior to late April 2021, failed the FAT. On January 6, 2023, plaintiff Maurice Twitchell filed suit on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Enovix or RSVAC common stock from February 22, 2021, through January 3, 2023. On March 19, 2024, plaintiffs filed the SAC, which is now the operative complaint. The Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5(b) promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Enovix is an early-stage technology company that purports to make a new type of lithium-ion ('Li-ion') battery that is smaller and stronger than conventional Li-ion batteries." A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8ph37h at no extra charge.[CC] EPOCH EVERLASTING: Jackson-Jones Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIENE JACKSON-JONES, individually and on behalf of all others situated, v. EPOCH EVERLASTING PLAY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-02567-ODW-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- certifying the Class under Rule 23(b)(3), -- appointing Ms. Williene Jackson-Jones as the Class Representative, and -- appointing undersigned counsel as Class Counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3): "All persons in the State of California who purchased at least one of the Products, for personal use and not for re-sale, since Jan. 30, 2019." For purposes of this Motion and the proposed class definition, the term "Products" means all Calico Critters flocked toys that were sold with a small part. The subject Products are listed in Appendix A and Appendix B. Excluded from the putative Class are the Defendants, their officers, directors, agents, trustees, parents, children, corporations, trusts, representatives, employees, successors, assigns, or other persons or entities related to or affiliated with Defendants and/or their officers and directors and/or any of them. Also excluded from the proposed Class are the Court, the Court’s immediate family and Court staff. From May 2021 through July 2022, the Plaintiff purchased eighteen Products from Defendants. Three of those purchases -- (1) the Calico Critters Baby Airplane Ride, Dollhouse Playset with Maple Cat Figure Included; (2) the Calico Critters Town Girl Series - Silk Cat; and (3) the Calico Critters School Lunch Set—were flocked toys containing small parts and thus banned hazardous substances illegally sold to her. Had Ms. Jackson-Jones known these products were banned hazardous substances, she would not have purchased them. Epoch is a manufacturer and distributor of entertaining products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2tM5NP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gillian L. Wade, Esq. Sara D. Avila, Esq. Marc A. Castaneda, Esq. WADE KILPELA SLADE, LLP 1 Riverfront Pl., Ste. 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Telephone: (501) 417-6445 E-mail: gwade@waykayslay.com sara@waykayslay.com marc@waykayslay.com - and - Justin R. Kaufman, Esq. Philip Kovnat, Esq. DURHAM, PITTARD & SPALDING, LLP 505 Cerillos Rd., Ste. A209 Santa Fe, NM 87501 Telephone: (505)986-0600 E-mail: jkaufman@dpslawgroup.com pkovnat@dpslawgroup.com - and - Jack Walker, Esq. MARTIN WALKER 121 N. Spring Ave. Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: (903)526-1600 E-mail: jwalker@martinwalker.com EPOCH EVERLASTING: Seeks OK of Bid to Seal Class Cert Motion ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIENE JACKSON-JONES, individually and on behalf of all others situated, v. EPOCH EVERLASTING PLAY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-02567-ODW-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to seal renewed motion for class certification and portions of supporting exhibit. Under Local Rule 79-5.2.2(b), the Plaintiff applies to the Court to file portions of Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification and two pages of one exhibit attached to the concurrently-filed Declaration of Gillian L. Wade in Support of Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification under seal. On Feb. 12, 2024, the Court entered the Parties' stipulated Protective Order. The Plaintiff’s Motion and supporting exhibits draw from information that Defendants have designated as Highly Confidential -- Attorneys' Eyes Only. The Plaintiff seeks to file under seal: 1. An unredacted copy of the Motion and, 2. Pages 121-122 from Exhibit 13 to the Wade Declaration. Exhibit 13 contains excerpts from the Deposition of Ms. Alyssa Masterson (Defendant's Rule 30(b)(6) corporate witness in this matter). The Plaintiff has made a good faith effort to work with the Defendants to reduce the amount of information excluded from the public record by publicly filing a narrowly redacted copy of the Motion for sealing. The content at issue in the Motion represents confidential, non-public, proprietary business information about the sale of Calico Critters flocked toys -- including units sold and profits realized in California as well as business strategies. The sales data was marked HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL when produced, in accordance with the Protective Order. Epoch is a manufacturer and distributor of entertaining products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k8Ud03 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gillian L. Wade, Esq. Sara D. Avila, Esq. Marc A. Castaneda, Esq. WADE KILPELA SLADE, LLP 1 Riverfront Pl., Ste. 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Telephone: (501) 417-6445 E-mail: gwade@waykayslay.com sara@waykayslay.com marc@waykayslay.com - and - Justin R. Kaufman, Esq. Philip Kovnat, Esq. DURHAM, PITTARD & SPALDING, LLP 505 Cerillos Rd., Ste. A209 Santa Fe, NM 87501 Telephone: (505)986-0600 E-mail: jkaufman@dpslawgroup.com pkovnat@dpslawgroup.com - and - Jack Walker, Esq. MARTIN WALKER 121 N. Spring Ave. Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: (903)526-1600 E-mail: jwalker@martinwalker.com EUROMARKET DESIGNS: Williams Seeks Leave to Amend Class Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICOLE A. WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. EUROMARKET DESIGNS, INC. DBA CB2 AND CRATE & BARREL ANDCRATE & KIDS AND HUDSON GRACE; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-02932-MWC-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Feb. 6, 2026, will move the Court for an Order granting the present motion for leave to amend complaint and continue motion for class certification deadline. On Jan. 18, 2024, the Plaintiff filed her class action complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court. On Apr. 11, 2024, the Defendant removed this action to the present federal Court. Euromarket provides household consumer products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L88Tj4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara DuVan-Clarke, Esq. Danielle Ling GruppChang, Esq. P.J. Van Ert, Esq. Melissa Rodriguez, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 622-4278 Facsimile: (855) 786-6356 E-mail: BDC@blackstonepc.com dgruppchang@blackstonepc.com pjvanert@blackstonepc.com mrodriguez@blackstonepc.com bdcservice@blackstonepc.com - and - Angel J. Horacek, Esq. Iryll Robbins-Umel, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ANGEL J. HORACEK, PC 5701 West Slauson Avenue, Suite 210 Culver City, CA 90230 Telephone: (310) 774-0323 Facsimile: (310) 774-3945 E-mail: angel@horaceklaw.com iryll@horaceklaw.com EXP REALTY: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Usanovic Due Nov. 21 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY USANOVIC, v. EXP REALTY LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00687-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robart entered a scheduling order regarding class certification motion: Deadline to complete discovery on Nov. 7, 2025 class certification (not to be construed as a bifurcation of discovery): Deadline for the Plaintiff's class Nov. 21, 2025 certification motion (to be noted for reply brief deadline): Deadline for the Defendant's Dec. 12, 2025 opposition to class certification: Deadline for the Plaintiff's reply Jan. 5, 2026 brief in support of class certification: Exp provides real estate services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tDQsIp at no extra charge.[CC] FACTORY MUTUAL: $750,000 Settlement in Cure Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD CURE and JEFFREY COOPER, individually, and as representatives of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries of the FM Global 401(k) Savings Plan, v. FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY RETIREMENT COMMITTEE, Case No. 1:23-cv-12399-JEK (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Kobick entered an order granting the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. The Court will issue a separate order generally adopting the plaintiffs' proposed order, which summarizes these findings, authorizes dissemination of the class notice, and details the schedule moving forward, including for the final approval hearing. The parties' settlement agreement is preliminarily approved pursuant to Rule 23(e) because all four factors are met. The plaintiffs’ interests do not conflict with those of the class because they, like other Plan participants, seek relief from the defendants' allegedly imprudent conduct in managing and administering the Plan. The proposed settlement of $750,000 represents 37.5% of the $2 million demanded for the claims concerning recordkeeping and administrative fees. This constitutes a reasonable amount, even though the parties did not assign value to the Fidelity Freedom Funds claims. Given the uncertainties of trial and the costs of litigation, the Court agrees with the parties that the proposed settlement of $750,000 is reasonable The Plaintiffs brought this putative class action alleging that the defendants, its board of directors, and its retirement committee breached certain fiduciary duties owed to the FM Global 401(k) Savings Plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). They claim that the Retirement Committee improperly permitted the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping and administrative fees and imprudently selected and retained underperforming investments, and that FM Global and its Board of Directors failed to adequately monitor that Committee. Factory is a company that specializes in providing commercial property insurance, risk management, and loss prevention services worldwide. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Oct. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=otRy2o at no extra charge.[CC] FOOD VENTURES: Robinson Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Braden Robinson, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. FOOD VENTURES NORTH AMERICA, INC. dba WILD FORK FOODS; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2025CUOE050108 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Ventura, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Oct. 17, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-09991. In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts, on behalf of himself and others allegedly similarly situated, eight causes of action under the California Labor Code against Defendant for failure to: pay minimum wage for all hours worked; pay overtime; permit lawful meal periods and pay premium pay; permit lawful rest periods and pay premium pay; timely pay earned wages during employment; provide accurate wage statements; timely pay all earned wages at separation of employment; and reimburse business expenses. The Plaintiff also asserts a claim under the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), which is a derivative claim that extends the statute of limitations for Plaintiff's claim for unpaid wages to four years.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jonathon M. Watson, Esq. SPENCER FANE LLP 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2000 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 839-3800 Facsimile: (303) 839-3838 Email: jmwatson@spencerfane.com ABBOTT CARDIOVASCULAR: Romo Suit Removed to N.D. California The case captioned as Helen Romo, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated, as well as fellow Aggrieved Employees v. ABBOTT CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation; DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 25CV473960 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Oct. 17, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-08935. The Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action against Abbott: failure to pay all earned wages; failure to pay all earned overtime wages; failure to permit paid 10 minute rest periods; failure to provide 30 minute meal periods; failure to timely pay all earned wages and compensation; failure to pay all earned wages and compensation upon termination; failure to provide lawful wage statements; unlawful mandate for execution of release; and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michele J. Beilke, Esq. Julia Y. Trankiem, Esq. Alexander W. Simon, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793 Phone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 Email: mbeilke@seyfarth.com jtrankiem@seyfarth.com asimon@seyfarth.com FOREST RIVER: Class Cert Hearing in Nelson Reset for Nov. 12 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAY NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FOREST RIVER, INC, an Indiana corporation, Case No. 4:22-cv-00049-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to reschedule Oct. 23, 2025, hearing. The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of class certification scheduled for Oct. 23, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. is vacated and reset for Nov. 12, 2025, at 3:30 p.m. Forest is an American manufacturer of recreational vehicles, cargo trailers, utility trailers, pontoon boats, and buses. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jczXyb at no extra charge.[CC] FOREST ROAD: Reilly Appeals Suit Dismissal to Del. Supreme Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRYAN REILLY is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Bryan Reilly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Keith L. Horn, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2024-0654-LWW, in the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware. On Sept. 30, 2025, Judge Lori W. Will entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The appellate case is entitled Bryan Reilly v. Keith L. Horn, et al., Case No. 25-426, in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, filed on October 14, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant BRYAN REILLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Michael J. Barry, Esq. Kelly L. Tucker, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 S. Justison Street, 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 Defendants-Appellees KEITH L. HORN, et al. are represented by: John L. Reed, Esq. Peter H. Kyle, Esq. Kelly L. Freund, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 1201 North Market Street, Suite 2100 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 468-5700 FREE FLY FISHING: Evans Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ James Evans, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Free Fly Fishing Company, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-12538 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 14, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through https://freeflyapparel.com (hereinafter "Freeflyapparel.com" or "the website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Freeflyapparel.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Free Fly Fishing Company provides to the public a website known as Freeflyapparel.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of hoodies, joggers, pants, shorts, leggings, pullovers, hats, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law GARY MUSSELWHITE: McCoy Bid to Certify Class Tossed --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCoy v. Musselwhite, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-00992 (E.D. Ark., Filed Sept. 22, 2025), the Hon. Judge Lee P. Rudofsky entered an order denying motion to Certify Class. The Plaintiff has not even obtained permission to proceed IFP in this matter. He should follow the Court's Order and complete his IFP application to proceed with his matter. Additionally, pro se litigants may only represent themselves and may only present their own claims and defenses. Under the law, a pro se plaintiff may not speak for another person. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Civil Rights.[CC] GENERAL MOTORS: Ginn Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GINN MOTOR COMPANY, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03773-TRJ (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file under seal. (1) Ginn's Motion for Class Certification; (2) Ginn's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; (3) Ginn's Statement of Uncontested Material Facts; (4) The Plaintiff's Exhibits 5, 6, and 7, attached to the Notice of Filing Exhibits to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and motion for partial summary judgment; and (5) Ginn's Motion to exclude Defendant GM's expert Fiona Scott Morton. General is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7rjYJw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason J. Carter, Esq. Naveen Ramachandrappa, Esq. Patrick C. Fagan, Esq. Solesse L. Altman, Esq. Eliza L. Taylor, Esq. Juliana Mesa, Esq. BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street NW, Suite 3900 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-4100 E-mail: carter@bmelaw.com ramachandrappa@bmelaw.com fagan@bmelaw.com altman@bmelaw.com taylor@bmelaw.com mesa@bmelaw.com - and - Richard N. Sox Jr., Esq. Jason T. Allen, Esq. BASS SOX MERCER 2822 Remington Green Cir Tallahassee, FL 32308 Telephone: (850) 878-6404 E-mail: rsox@bsm-law.com jallen@bsm-law.com - and - Jeffrey R. Harris, Esq. Jed D. Manton, Esq. HARRIS LOWRY MANTON LLP 1418 Dresden Dr NE, Suite 250 Brookhaven, GA 30319 Telephone: (404) 994-2351 E-mail: jeff@hlmlawfirm.com jed@hlmlawfirm.com - and - Shawn D. Mercer, Esq. BASS SOX MERCER 4208 Six Forks Rd, Suite 1000 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: (919) 847-8632 E-mail: smercer@bsm-law.com GENERAL MOTORS: Ginn Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GINN MOTOR COMPANY, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03773-TRJ (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order to certifying the following Class: "(a) any GM-franchised motor vehicle dealer that (b) has performed or continues to perform any service on parts required by GM warranty, recall, or other work that GM requires its dealers to perform (c) in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, or South Carolina and (d) which did not or will not receive retail-rate compensation for the service on those motor vehicle parts (unless the service on the part is expressly excluded by the relevant State statute) within the statute of limitations for the relevant State." Ginn moves for certification of this Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Ginn moves for certification of the Class claims for monetary relief pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) and for certification of the Class claims for injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2). Because the questions of liability and damages both meet the requirements for class certification, the Court should certify the case in its entirety. In the alternative, the Court should certify the question of liability under Rule 23(c)(4). Certification of the Class as defined is appropriate and manageable. But to the extent the Court views subclasses as enhancing the manageability of the case, the creation of subclasses under Rule 23(c)(5) would also be appropriate. 2. Appoint the following law firms as Class Counsel: Bondurant Mixson & Elmore LLP; Harris Lowry Manton LLP; Bass Sox Mercer. 3. Hold oral argument on the Motion for Class Certification. Ginn submits that oral argument would be useful for evaluating the many factors involved in a class certification decision under Rule 23. General is an American multinational automotive manufacturing company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F9Y7s7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason J. Carter, Esq. Naveen Ramachandrappa, Esq. Patrick C. Fagan, Esq. Solesse L. Altman, Esq. Eliza L. Taylor, Esq. Juliana Mesa, Esq. BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street NW, Suite 3900 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-4100 E-mail: carter@bmelaw.com ramachandrappa@bmelaw.com fagan@bmelaw.com altman@bmelaw.com taylor@bmelaw.com mesa@bmelaw.com - and - Richard N. Sox Jr., Esq. Jason T. Allen, Esq. BASS SOX MERCER 2822 Remington Green Cir Tallahassee, FL 32308 Telephone: (850) 878-6404 E-mail: rsox@bsm-law.com jallen@bsm-law.com - and - Jeffrey R. Harris, Esq. Jed D. Manton, Esq. HARRIS LOWRY MANTON LLP 1418 Dresden Dr NE, Suite 250 Brookhaven, GA 30319 Telephone: (404) 994-2351 E-mail: jeff@hlmlawfirm.com jed@hlmlawfirm.com - and - Shawn D. Mercer, Esq. BASS SOX MERCER 4208 Six Forks Rd, Suite 1000 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: (919) 847-8632 E-mail: smercer@bsm-law.com GERARD VAN DE POL: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 28, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN VILLALOVOS-GUTIERREZ, ET AL., v. GERARD VAN DE POL, ET AL., Case No. 2:24-cv-02305-DJC-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered an order an amended scheduling order as follows: -- All fact discovery shall be completed1 no later than Apr. 17, 2026. -- The parties shall disclose initial experts and produce reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than May 8, 2026. -- All expert discovery shall be completed no later than July 17, 2026. -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, shall be filed on or before Jan. 28, 2026 and shall be noticed for hearing before Judge Calabretta on or before Mar. 5, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. -- All dispositive motions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications, shall be filed on or before June 26, 2026 and shall be noticed for hearing before Judge Calabretta on or before Aug. 13, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. -- The final pretrial conference is set for Nov. 12, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 7 before District Court Judge Daniel J. Calabretta. -- A jury trial is set for Feb. 1, 2027 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 7 before District Court Judge Daniel J. Calabretta. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HeKbCv at no extra charge.[CC] GFA ALABAMA: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JIMMY MARTINEZ-LOPEZ and ROSA LINDA SORIANO-TORRES, Individually and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, v. GFA ALABAMA INC. and GLOVIS GEORGIA, LLC d/b/a HYUNDAI GLOVIS, Case No. 1:24-cv-02676-JPB-CCB (N.D. Ga.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion and that: (1) The deadline for the Defendants to file their respective answers to the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint be extended through and including Nov. 6, 2025; (2) The deadline for the parties to confer pursuant to Rule 26(f) be extended through and including Nov. 20, 2025; (3) The local rule deadline to file a motion for class certification be stayed pending dates to be proposed by the Parties in their joint preliminary report and discovery plan; and (4) The deadline for the parties to file their joint preliminary report and discovery plan be extended through and including Nov. 24, 2025. GFA provides furnishing automotive services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tSXij3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian J. Sutherland, Esq. Rachel B. Benjamin, Esq. BEAL SUTHERLAND BERLIN & BROWN 2200 Century Parkway Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30345 Telephone: (678) 449-0361 E-mail: rachel@beal.law brian@beal.law - and - Christopher B. Hall, Esq. HALL & LAMPROS, LLP 300 Galleria Parkway, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (404) 876-8100 E-mail: chall@hallandlampros.com - and - Daniel Werner, Esq. James Radford, Esq. RADFORD SCOTT LLP 125 Clairemont Ave., Suite 380 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (678) 271-0300 E-mail: jradford@radfordscott.com dwerner@radfordscott.com - and - Julia Solorzano, Esq. Abigail R. Kerfoot, Esq. CENTRO DE LOS DERECHOS DEL MIGRANTE, INC. 711 W. 40th Street, Suite 412 Baltimore, MD 21211 Telephone: (855) 234-9699 E-mail: abigail@cdmigrante.orgjulias@cdmigrante.org The Defendants are represented by: Sarah M. Phaff, Esq. Timothy Boughey, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 230 Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 2400 Atlanta, GA 30303-1557 Telephone: (404) 525-8622 Facsimile: (404) 525-6955 E-mail: sphaff@constangy.com tboughey@constangy.com - and - John D. Bennett, Esq. Michael M. Hill, Esq. William H. Buechner, Jr., Esq. FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP 100 Galleria Parkway, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (678) 996-9056 Facsimile: (833) 330-3669 E-mail: jbennett@fmglaw.com mhill@fmglaw.com bbuechner@fmglaw.com GIGACLOUD TECH: Settlement Class in Thomas Gets Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Thomas J. Kinnally v. GigaCloud Technology Inc et al. (RE: GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY INC SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 1:23-cv-10684-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered a final order and judgment as follows: 1. The Court affirms its determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order and finally certifies, for purposes of the Settlement only, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Settlement Class of: "all persons and entities who or that purchased or otherwise acquired GigaCloud Stock during the period from Aug. 18, 2022 to May 22, 2024, both dates inclusive, and were damaged thereby." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants and any affiliates or subsidiaries thereof; (ii) present and former officers and directors of GigaCloud and members of their Immediate Families; (iii) the Defendants' liability insurance carriers, and any affiliates or subsidiaries thereof; (iv) any entity in which any Defendant had or has had a controlling interest; (v) GigaCloud's employee retirement and benefit plan(s); and (vi) the legal representatives, heirs, estates, agents, successors, or assigns of any such excluded person or entity in (i)-(v). 2. The Court finally certifies Rajan and Spear as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class; and appoints the law firms of Pomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. 3. The second amended class action complaint, filed on June 28, 2024, is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice, and without costs to any Party, except as otherwise provided in the Stipulation. 4. Co-Lead Counsel are awarded, on behalf of all Plaintiffs' Counsel, attorneys' fees in the amount of $918,500, and $101,195.16 in payment of litigation expenses. 5. In making this award of attorneys' fees and payment of Litigation Expenses to be paid from the Settlement Fund, the Court has found that: (a) The Settlement has created a common fund of $2,750,000 in cash and that numerous Settlement Class Members who submit acceptable Claim Forms will benefit from the Settlement created by the efforts of Plaintiffs' Counsel; 6. Co-Lead Plaintiff Sashi Rajan is awarded $7,500 from the Settlement Fund as reimbursement for his reasonable costs and expenses directly related to his representation of the Settlement Class. 7. Co-Lead Plaintiff Meir Spear is awarded $7,500 from the Settlement Fund as reimbursement for his reasonable costs and expenses directly related to his representation of the Settlement Class. GigaCloud is an American e-commerce company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7j3Q0E at no extra charge.[CC] GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY: Settlement Class Gets Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY INC SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered a final order and judgment as follows: 1. The Court affirms its determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order and finally certifies, for purposes of the Settlement only, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Settlement Class of: "all persons and entities who or that purchased or otherwise acquired GigaCloud Stock during the period from Aug. 18, 2022 to May 22, 2024, both dates inclusive, and were damaged thereby." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants and any affiliates or subsidiaries thereof; (ii) present and former officers and directors of GigaCloud and members of their Immediate Families; (iii) the Defendants' liability insurance carriers, and any affiliates or subsidiaries thereof; (iv) any entity in which any Defendant had or has had a controlling interest; (v) GigaCloud's employee retirement and benefit plan(s); and (vi) the legal representatives, heirs, estates, agents, successors, or assigns of any such excluded person or entity in (i)-(v). 2. The Court finally certifies Rajan and Spear as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class; and appoints the law firms of Pomerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. 3. The second amended class action complaint, filed on June 28, 2024, is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice, and without costs to any Party, except as otherwise provided in the Stipulation. 4. Co-Lead Counsel are awarded, on behalf of all Plaintiffs' Counsel, attorneys' fees in the amount of $918,500, and $101,195.16 in payment of litigation expenses. 5. In making this award of attorneys' fees and payment of Litigation Expenses to be paid from the Settlement Fund, the Court has found that: (a) The Settlement has created a common fund of $2,750,000 in cash and that numerous Settlement Class Members who submit acceptable Claim Forms will benefit from the Settlement created by the efforts of Plaintiffs' Counsel; 6. Co-Lead Plaintiff Sashi Rajan is awarded $7,500 from the Settlement Fund as reimbursement for his reasonable costs and expenses directly related to his representation of the Settlement Class. 7. Co-Lead Plaintiff Meir Spear is awarded $7,500 from the Settlement Fund as reimbursement for his reasonable costs and expenses directly related to his representation of the Settlement Class. GigaCloud is an American e-commerce company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7KgMuw at no extra charge.[CC] GMAP LOGISTICS: Severino Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERNESTO SEVERINO, AIndividually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. GMAP LOGISTICS LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03078-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) conditionally certifying a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); (2) approving the proposed collective action notice and the consent form; (3) authorizing the notice and consent form to be distributed to the Collective Action Members; (4) directing the Defendant to produce, within ten business days of the Order, the names, last known mailing addresses, job titles, telephone numbers, email addresses, and employment dates of all Collective Action Members; (5) directing Defendant to post the notice and consent form at their place of business; (6) authorizing distribution of the reminder notice to the Collective Action Members via post card and email; and (7) equitably tolling the Collective Action Members' FLSA claims between the date of this Motion and when the Court issues its order on it. GMAP provides package delivery services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ig0km3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Frank J. Tantone, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170-1830 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com frank@lipskylowe.com GOLDEN UNICORN: Valencia Sues Over Website's Inaccessibility ------------------------------------------------------------ JUSTIN VALENCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOLDEN UNICORN RESTAURANT CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07764 (S.D.N.Y., September 18, 2025), arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of reviewing the menu and placing an online order. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. Golden Unicorn Restaurant Corp. owns and operates the website, www.goldenunicornrestaurant.com, which offers dine-in and online ordering options for the customers Chinese restaurant Golden Unicorn in New York City. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com GOLO LLC: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Bubak Consumer Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned VINCENZZA BUBAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant v. GOLO, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant - Appellee, Case No. 24-492 (9th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a Memorandum affirming the dismissal of the underlying lawsuit. The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, D.C. No. 1:21-cv-00492-DAD-AC (Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding). The Ninth Circuit panel consists of Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw, Consuelo Callahan, and Andrew Hurwitz. Judge Callahan issued a concurring opinion. Vincenzza Bubak filed a putative class action alleging that Golo, LLC violated California law through its marketing and distribution of a dietary supplement. Bubak asserted violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), which permits suit by private parties who have suffered an injury as a result of any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice. Bubak's UCL claim was premised on Golo's alleged violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"), as incorporated into California law in the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law ("Sherman Law"). After the Court of Appeals decided Nexus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Central Admixture Pharmacy Services, Inc., 48 F.4th 1040 (9th Cir. 2022), the district court dismissed Bubak's complaint. Bubak timely appealed. The Court of Appeals finds it has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291 and reviews the dismissal de novo, taking all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construing the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. In affirming the lower court decision, the Court of Appeals explains the FDCA expressly prohibits private enforcement. In Nexus, the plaintiff sought to avoid this prohibition by bringing claims under the UCL and other state laws that "incorporate" the FDCA. The Court of Appeals explains, however, that these claims are preempted because they rest upon a violation of the FDCA, and proceedings to enforce or restrain violations of the FDCA must be by and in the name of the United States, not a private party. The Panel explains that Bubak's claims face the same problem. She asserts that she may sue under the UCL because the FDCA is "incorporated into" the Sherman Law and Golo violated Section 403(r) of the FDCA by representing that its dietary supplement can mitigate or prevent a disease. Bubak's UCL claim, therefore, necessarily requires litigating the alleged underlying FDCA violation, and the plain text of the FDCA leaves that determination in the first instance to the FDA's balancing of risks and concerns in its enforcement process. The Panel opines that Bubak's attempts to distinguish Nexus are unpersuasive. Although Bubak argues that "Nexus did not address the Sherman Law," the UCL claim in that case rested on an alleged violation of the Sherman Law. Bubak also argues that Nexus is distinguishable because it concerned drug regulations. But Congress's preemption of a state's food labeling regulations that are "not identical to" FDCA requirements mirrors Congress's preemption of a state's drug regulations that are different from, or in addition to FDCA requirements, the Panel points out. Finally, Bubak argues, among other things, that Nexus concerned fraudulent statements made to the FDA while her claim turns on misrepresentations made to consumers. But what matters is whether the Plaintiff brings a state law claim that exists "solely by virtue of the FDCA," the Panel says, citing Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341, 353 (2001). Because the FDCA preempts private lawsuits seeking judicial resolution of such questions, the claim is preempted, the Panel concludes. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Oct. 9, 2025, is available at https://tinyurl.com/539np5sc from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. GRACO CHILDREN'S: Court Vacates Sept. 30, 2025 Class Order ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carder v. Graco Children's Products, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00137-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May entered an judgment vacating the Sept. 30, 2025, Order that granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. In that Order, the Court stated that certain choice-of-law issues would be addressed in the Court's decision on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Because the Court has not yet entered the order on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, the Court sua sponte vacates the prior Order. The Court is contemporaneously filing a new Order to address this motion, which includes the choice-law analysis. The Court will address the Motion for Class Certification after the supplementary briefing is completed. Graco is an American baby products company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IeoqSz at no extra charge.[CC] GROCERY DELIVERY: Salvant Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grocery Delivery E-Services USA, Inc. The case is styled as Fabiola Salvant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Grocery Delivery E-Services USA, Inc. doing business as: EveryPlate, Case No. 1:25-cv-05869-VMC (N.D. Ga., Oct. 13, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Grocery Delivery E-Services USA, Inc. doing business as EveryPlate -- https://www.everyplate.com/ -- offers delicious, budget friendly meal kits delivered weekly.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 26 Grand Georgian Ct. Cantersville, GA 30121 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com HARMONY DESIGNS: Valencia Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN VALENCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARMONY DESIGNS FURNITURE & INTERIORS INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07763 (S.D.N.Y., September 18, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Allegedly, the Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on May 12, 2025, to access Defendant's website from his home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. Harmony Designs Furniture & Interiors Incorporated owns and operates the website, www.harmonydesignsfurniture.com, which offers home decor and natural personal care products for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com HAUPPAUGE BAGEL: Valle Sues to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Angel Antonio Romero Valle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HAUPPAUGE BAGEL CORP, d/b/a BRENDELS BAGELS & EATERY, CRAIG BERESID and STACY BERESID, as individuals, Case No. 2:25-cv-05732 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2025), is brought against the Defendants to recover minimum wage and overtime wage and damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiff's employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was regularly required to work: approximately 72 hours per week. Further, Plaintiff was not compensated at all by the Defendants for his last 1 work week, which to date remains unpaid. The Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by the FLSA and NYLL. As a direct result of Defendants' violations and failure to provide proper wage notices, Plaintiff suffered a concrete harm, resulting from Plaintiff's inability to identify Plaintiff's employer to remedy his compensation problems, lack of knowledge about the rates of pay he was receiving and/or should have receiving for his regular hours and overtime hours, terms, and conditions of his pay, and furthermore, an inability to identify his hourly rate of pay to ascertain whether he was being properly paid in compliance with the FLSA and NYLL--which he was not, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a cook and food preparer while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants. HAUPPAUGE BAGEL CORP, d/b/a BRENDELS BAGELS & EATERY, is a New York domestic business corporation organized under the laws of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 Fax: 718-263-9598 HB FULLER: Rouse Bid for Attys' Fees Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lisa Rouse, Juston Rouse, Jenna Drouin, and Nicholas Drouin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. H.B. Fuller Company and H.B. Fuller Construction Products Inc., Case No. 0:22-cv-02173-JMB-JFD (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge John F. Docherty entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' requests for attorneys' fees as follows: 1) The Defendants will pay the Plaintiffs' counsel $35,387.50 for attorneys' fees and costs associated with the Plaintiffs' motion to compel adequately prepared Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative; and 2) The Defendants will pay Plaintiffs' counsel $30,371.95 for Attorneys' fees and costs associated with HBF Co.'s second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. The Court declines to order Defendants to compensate Plaintiffs for any travel related costs or fees incurred in traveling to St. Paul for the Case Management Conference in May. As HBF Co. notes, Plaintiffs' counsel would have had to travel to St. Paul for the Case Management Conference whether or not they brought the Motion to Compel. The Court will, however award fees and costs directly associated with the motion, including one third of the time spent preparing for and participating in the hearing. Reviewing the submitted billing records, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs' counsel is entitled to compensation for $5,004.00 for Mr. Hine's work on May 15, 2025, and $4,517.50 for his work on May 16, 2025. As for Ms. Bergman's time, the Plaintiffs' counsel is entitled to compensation for $1,237.50 for her work on the 15th and $1,930.50 for her work on the 16th. The Plaintiffs' counsel is also entitled to compensation for the $22,699.00 for the 44.9 hours spent by Mr. Hine and Mr. Soder in drafting the briefing for the Motion to Compel. In sum, the amount owed to Plaintiffs' counsel in connection to the Motion to Compel is $35,387.50. After excising one half of each of the entries where such commingling occurred, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' counsel incurred $26,351.50 in attorneys' fees related to the second Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of HBF Co.1 In sum, the amount owed to Plaintiffs' counsel in connection to the Second Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of HBF Co. is $30,371.95. HB is an American multinational adhesives manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cvuz3w at no extra charge.[CC] HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Reading Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- READING HOSPITAL is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing its lawsuit entitled Reading Hospital, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-02715-JMG, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for their alleged engagement in anticompetitive practices in the U.S. hospital bed market, in violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. On Sept. 30, 2024, the Plaintiff filed its first amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on Nov. 8, 2024. On Sept. 12, 2025, Judge John M. Gallagher entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Court finds that the Defendants would be prejudiced by permitting the Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint and have to forego another round of motions and briefing. Further, so many of the Plaintiff's allegations stem from Corporate Enterprise Agreements (CEAs), and the Plaintiff's failure to provide any specific details regarding the terms of the CEAs further supports the Court's conclusion that allowing leave to amend would be inequitable at this point. The appellate case is entitled Reading Hospital v. Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-2969, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on October 14, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant READING HOSPITAL, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Scott Martin, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1195 Email: smartin@hausfeld.com - and - Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq. Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery St., Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (267)-702-2318 Email: gsmith@hausfeld.com mlehmann@hausfeld.com - and - Katie R. Beran, Esq. 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 985-3270 Email: kberan@hausfeld.com - and - Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq. Farhad Mirzadeh, Esq. 1200 17th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Email: mcoolidge@hausfeld.com fmirzadeh@hausfeld.com - and - Gordon Ball, Esq. GORDON BALL, PLLC 3728 West End Avenue Nashville, TN 37205 Telephone: (865) 525-7028 Email: gball@gordonball.com HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE: Caston Suit to Proceed vs Genentech ------------------------------------------------------ HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE: Caston Suit to Proceed vs Genentech, 9th Cir. Says The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the dismissal of claims against the Roche Defendants in the lawsuits entitled ANDREA M. CASTON; RICHARD GITHENS; PATRICK EUGENE WAGHER; KENDRICK ALLEN, Plaintiffs - Appellants v. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE, INC.; ROCHE LABORATORIES INC.; GENENTECH, INC.; GENENTECH USA INC, Defendants - Appellees, Case No. 24-2920 (9th Cir.), D.C. No. 3:23-cv-00928-TLT. ANDREA M. CASTON; RICHARD GITHENS; PATRICK EUGENE WAGHER; KENDRICK ALLEN, Plaintiffs - Appellees v. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE, INC.; ROCHE LABORATORIES INC., Defendants - Appellants, and GENENTECH, INC., GENENTECH USA INC., Defendants, Case No. 24-3349 (9th Cir.), D.C. No. 3:23-cv-00928-TLT. The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Trina L. Thompson, District Judge, Presiding). The Ninth Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Phyllis Hamilton, Ryan Nelson, and Patrick Bumatay. The Appellants, four former servicemembers, appeal the district court's dismissal of their products-liability class action against Hoffmann–La Roche Inc. and Roche Laboratories Inc., and Genentech, Inc. and Genentech USA, Inc. The Roche and Genentech Defendants cross-appealed, contending that Appellants lack Article III standing to bring a class action for medical monitoring. The Court of Appeals reviews legal questions and dismissal for lack of jurisdiction de novo, and affirms in part, vacates in part, and remands. The Panel finds the district court erred in dismissing the Appellants' products-liability claims under the political question doctrine based on the approval of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") of mefloquine. The Panel explains that the political question doctrine is a "narrow exception" that applies only when adjudication will "certainly and inextricably" require courts to decide issues constitutionally committed to another branch, the Panel explains, citing Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189, 195 (2012); Cooper v. Tokyo Elec. Power Co., 860 F.3d 1193, 1214 (9th Cir. 2017). The political question doctrine does not bar ordinary product-liability claims merely because the FDA regulates pharmaceuticals. Likewise, the Panel points out it would be premature to invoke the political question doctrine based on the military's approval of mefloquine. The Appellants argue that their claims rest on Appellees' own conduct without requiring judicial review of military judgments. At this stage, the Panel says it is speculative to consider how the military dimension of the political question doctrine might come into play. The Panel directs the district court to revisit the issue at a later stage of this litigation. The Court of Appeals finds the district court correctly concluded there is no general or specific jurisdiction over the Roche Defendants. The Court of Appeals holds that the Appellants cannot show that their injuries "arise out of or relate to" California-directed conduct by the Roche Defendants. The Court of Appeals, thus, affirms the dismissal of claims against the Roche Defendants, but without prejudice and based only on lack of personal jurisdiction. Instead of damages for the alleged injuries caused by mefloquine, the Appellants seek a medical-monitoring program to redress any potential future neurological and psychiatric injuries caused by the anti-malarial drug. As currently pled, the Panel notes it is unclear whether medical monitoring would redress the Appellants' alleged future harms against the remaining Genentech Defendants. At oral argument, the Appellants' counsel stated that they could amend their complaint to cure any redressability defects. Because amendment may resolve these potential standing deficiencies against the Genentech Defendants, the Court of Appeals remands with instructions to allow the Appellants to amend their complaint to clarify how the requested monitoring program would likely redress their alleged injuries. Finally, the Panel says it cannot affirm dismissal of claims against the Genentech Defendants on the alternative ground of preemption under the reasoning of PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604 (2011). All parties on appeal agree that the Genentech Defendants are not generic manufacturers of mefloquine. The Panel rules as follows. The Appellants' motion to dismiss the cross-appeal is denied as moot. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America's motion for leave to file an amicus brief is granted. Each party will bear its own costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available at https://tinyurl.com/mm3ytpd7 from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. HOME DEPOT: Class Settlement in Dalton Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Home Depot U.S.A., doing business as Home Depot, Case No. 0:23-cv-02126-DWF-DLM (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Donovan W. Frank entered a preliminary class certification and preliminary settlement approval order: 1. The Settlement Agreement, including the exhibits attached thereto, is preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, in accordance with Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, pending a Final Approval Hearing on the Settlement as provided herein. 2. Pending the Final Approval Hearing, all proceedings in the Action, other than proceedings necessary to carry out or enforce the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement and this Order, are stayed. 3. The proposed "Settlement Class" is preliminarily certified pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All blind or visually impaired individuals or other individuals in the United States with disabilities as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act who use or require the use of audio readouts of on-screen prompts and tactile keypads associated with payment terminals (or comparable technologies that allow the individuals to interact with payment terminals), and who have or allege they have been, or in the future will be, denied the full and equal enjoyment of Defendant's payment terminals' cash back feature at stores owned or operated by the Defendant in the United States because such persons encounter(ed) a payment terminal without an audio readout and tactile keypad to obtain cash back at the Defendant's stores." 4. The Plaintiff Julie Dalton is appointed as Settlement Class Representative. 5. The Court appoints Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. of Throndset Michenfelder, LLC, as Class Counsel to act on behalf of the Settlement Class Representative and the Settlement Class with respect to the Settlement. 6. A hearing will be held before the Court in Courtroom 7C, 7th Floor, Warren E. Burger Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 316 North Robert Street, St. Paul, Minnesota at 10:30 a.m. on Jan. 14, 2026. Home is an American multinational home improvement retail corporation. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IjE4Vk at no extra charge.[CC] HOMER DELOACH: Williams Bid for Class Cert Tossed ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUSHEA WILLIAMS, v. SHERIFF HOMER DELOACH, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01021-WWB-SJH (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Berger entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is deferred. If the Plaintiff submits a proper pleading, the Court will rule on the motion at that time. 2. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification and the appointment of counsel is denied. 3. The Plaintiff's motion for declaratory judgment and specific performance is denied. 4. The Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice. 5. The Clerk shall send Plaintiff a Civil Rights Complaint form. 6. If the Plaintiff wants to proceed on a claim or related claims, he must mail an amended complaint to the Court for filing within twenty days of the date of this Order. The amended complaint must comply with the instructions on the form and those provided in this Order The Plaintiff's complaint is subject to dismissal because his allegations are not short and plain; he joins multiple, unrelated claims, many of which are not plausibly alleged; and he improperly seeks to proceed on behalf of other inmates. The Plaintiff, an inmate of the Putnam County Jail who is proceeding pro se, initiated this case by filing a civil rights complaint, a motion to proceed in forma pauperis , and a motion for class certification and the appointment of counsel. The Plaintiff names nine Defendants for alleged violations of his (and other inmates') First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xYNOGg at no extra charge.[CC] HOSPITAL SISTERS: Parties Seeks More Time to File Reply Docs ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIE BRAHM, et al., v. HOSPITAL SISTERS HEALTH SYSTEMS et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00444-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the Plaintiffs' deadline to file reply documents supporting their motion for class certification by three weeks, through Nov. 14, 2025. The Plaintiffs are prepared to take the defendants' expert depositions before the scheduled deadline, Oct. 24, 2025, but have agreed to seek this extension to accommodate Dr. Lemon's schedule. If the Court grants this extension, the plaintiffs will take Mr. Vint's deposition on October 30 and Dr. Lemon's on October 31, 2025. This request does not affect any other deadline. The parties noted in their last request that they would not seek another extension on plaintiffs' class certification deadlines. Hospital operates a network of 15 hospitals and other healthcare facilities throughout the midwestern U.S. states of Illinois, and Wisconsin. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oAdzCQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alex Phillips, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: aphillips@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Foster C. Johnson, Esq. AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, & MENSING, PLLC 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2500 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 655-1101 Facsimile: (713) 655-0062 E-mail: fjohnson@azalaw.com dwarden@azalaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Kendall W. Harrison, Esq. GODFREY & KAHN, S.C. One East Main Street, Suite 500 Madison, WI 53701-2719 Telephone: (608) 257-3911 Facsimile: (608) 257-0609 E-mail: kharrison@gklaw.com - and - Tammy B. Webb, Esq. Maveric Ray Searle, Esq. Daniel E. Rohner, Esq. Aubrey Kramer, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 201 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3200 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-5171 Facsimile: (305) 358-7470 E-mail: tbwebb@shb.com msearle@shb.com drohner@shb.com akramer@shb.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Court Consolidates Hageman & Bal Cases ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brenda Hageman, Richard Price, Timothy Sage, Lisa Page, David Kostka, Mark Schofield, Louella Wilson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 8:23-cv-01045-HDV-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vera entered an order granting the Parties' joint stipulation to consolidate cases Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The instant action and the related action of Bal v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 8:24-cv 01657-HDV-KES (C.D. Cal.), are consolidated for all purposes, including with respect to any forthcoming motions for class certification and/or summary judgment. The parties in both actions shall file a single set of briefs in support of or opposition to these motions, which shall be filed on the docket of the instant action (as the case with the lower case number). The briefing schedule for plaintiffs' consolidated motion for class certification shall follow the schedule set by the Court in the Bal action. Hyundai manufactures and retails automobiles. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RQmf9C at no extra charge.[CC] HYUNDAI MOTOR: Hageman Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brenda Hageman, et al., v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 8:23-cv-01045-HDV-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their application for leave to file under seal the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and exhibits in support, pursuant to L.R. 79-5.2.2(b). By filing the application, the Plaintiffs do not agree or concede that the documents lodged under seal should be kept under seal. Instead, Plaintiffs make this Application to comply with the Protective Order and to provide the Court with an opportunity to hear Hyundai's explanation regarding why, in its view, good cause exists to seal the designated materials and the portions of the Motion discussing these documents. Hyundai manufactures and retails automobiles. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SKHGwO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Trinette G. Kent, Esq. Stephen Taylor, Esq. Vlad Hirnyk, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 1100 West Town & Country Rd. Suite 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Telephone: (480) 247-9644 Facsimile: (480) 717-4781 E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com staylor@lemberglaw.com vhirnyk@lemberglaw.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Hageman Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brenda Hageman, et al., v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 8:23-cv-01045-HDV-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Dec. 11, 2025, will move for an order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 certifying the following classes: -- Texas Class: "All persons who purchased or leased a 2020-2022 Hyundai Palisade vehicle in the State of Texas with a Tow Hitch Wiring Harness." -- South Carolina Class: "All persons who purchased or leased a 2020 2022 Hyundai Palisade vehicle in the State of South Carolina equipped with a Tow Hitch Wiring Harness." The Plaintiffs and putative class members are purchasers and lessees of 2020-2022 Hyundai Palisade vehicles (the "Class Vehicles") who paid extra money for vehicle towing packages (the "Tow Hitch Wiring Harness") that, unbeknownst to them, cause Palisades tow hitch modules to fail, melt or catch on fire. Hyundai's remedy to this situation, because it did not develop a remedy in a reasonable time, was to pull a fuse that powered the Tow Hitch Wiring Harness "disabling Plaintiffs' Vehicles from being able to safely tow at all." The Palisades is a large SUV marketed by HMA for its power and towing ability. Class certification is the superior method to adjudicate this case fairly and efficiently because it is neither economically feasible, nor judicially efficient, for the tens of thousands putative class members to pursue their claims against HMA on an individual basis. Hence, a class action will achieve economies of time, effort and expense, as well as promote uniformity of decision as to persons similarly situated. Hyundai manufactures and retails automobiles. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZXt6Ox at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Trinette G. Kent, Esq. Stephen Taylor, Esq. Vlad Hirnyk, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 1100 West Town & Country Rd. Suite 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Telephone: (480) 247-9644 Facsimile: (480) 717-4781 E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com staylor@lemberglaw.com vhirnyk@lemberglaw.com ILLINOIS: Seeks Denial of Kainz Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Heather Kainz, et al., on behalf of Themselves and a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, v. Illinois Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01250-JEH-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs provide no explanation or authority that supports imposing class wide liability on the Individual Defendants for different series of events that often involved assessing and evaluating differing severely mentally ill individuals in custody who committed acts of masturbation sexual misconduct. The proposed class of hostile work environment and sexual harassment claims lacks the commonality required by Rule 23(a)(2) In this context, there are no singular issues of fact or law that can address and resolve the unique issues associated with the masturbation sexual misconduct of each offending individual in custody at the PCC and their responses or lack of responses to existing IDOC policies and procedures and the procedures and remedial measures adopted and implemented at the PCC. The Plaintiffs filed claims of third party sexual harassment against the Individual Defendants based on the alleged inadequacy of government adopted policies directed at deterring sexual misconduct offenses by individuals in custody committed against employees at the Pontiac Correctional Center ("PCC"). IDOC was established in 1970, combining the state's prisons, juvenile centers, and parole services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sCQz7I at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Robert T. Shannon, Esq. Justin Penn, Esq. Ambrose V. McCall, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 151 North Franklin Street, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 704-3901 Facsimile: (312) 704-3001 E-mail: rshannon@hinshawlaw.com jpenn@hinshawlaw.com amccall@hinshawlaw.com INTERNATIONAL GAME: Loescher Failure to Secure PII and PHI ---------------------------------------------------------- Lindsay Loescher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY, a Nevada Corporation, and BRIGHTSTAR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-01956 (D. Nev., Oct. 13, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendants failure to secure the personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI", and collectively, "Private Information") of Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class, following a cyberattack (the "Data Breach"). In the course of their regular business operations, Defendants collect, store, and maintain substantial amount of Private Information, and have a resulting duty to safeguard that Private Information from unauthorized access. On November 17, 2024, Defendants discovered that an unauthorized third party gained access to certain of their internal corporate systems. Upon discovery, Defendants launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. On October 3, 2025--nearly 11 months after being made aware of the Data Breach--Defendants issued a notice of public disclosure about the Data Breach and began sending notice letters ("Notice") to impacted individuals, and, on October 3, 2025, Defendant sent Plaintiff a Notice informing her that her Private Information was compromised as a result of the Data Breach. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of loss of the value of their private and confidential information, loss of the benefit of their contractual bargain, out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information which was entrusted to Defendants, their officials and agents—was compromised, unlawfully accessed, and stolen due to the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are comprised of current and former customer and employees of Defendants. IGT is a company that produces slot machines and other gambling technologies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Blvd, Suite 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Phone: (725) 235-9750 Email: lasvegas@stranchlaw.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: Standing Order Entered in St. John ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN BRYAN ST. JOHN, ET AL., v. ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN, ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS & IRANIAN MINISTRY OF INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY, Case No. 1:23-cv-02333-BAH (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Howell entered an order: A defendant removing an action to this Court must refile any answer filed before removal and promptly ensure that all parties receive a copy of this Standing Order. Any motion pending and unresolved in the court from which the case is transferred at the time of transfer must be refiled in this Court by the party seeking relief within seven days after the transfer order is filed in this Court’s docket. After submission of the Joint Meet and Confer Report, the Court will, if necessary, schedule an initial status conference to address matters that are not addressed or agreed to by the parties in the Joint Meet and Confer Report. Extensions or enlargements of time will be granted only upon motion, and not upon stipulation by the parties. Iran is a country in West Asia. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WtKFN2 at no extra charge.[CC] J.M. SMUCKER: Ringler Suit Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADINA RINGLER, KRISTA ROBLES, JAY SMITH, and JANA RABINOWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY, Case No. 2:25-cv-01138-AH-E (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Nov. 5, 2025, will move to modify the Court's Scheduling Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) by continuing the Dec. 10, 2025 class certification motion hearing deadline by 91 days to March 11, 2025 or to any later date that is convenient for the Court. The Plaintiffs contend that the continuance is necessary to allow them sufficient time to complete discovery and prepare their Motion for Class Certification. The action was initiated by Plaintiff Adina Ringler in the Central District of California on February 10, 2025. JM is an American manufacturer of food and beverage products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yI4HZg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig W. Straub, Esq. Lilach H. Klein, Esq. Michael T. Houchin, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: craig@crosnerlegal.com lilach@crosnerlegal.com mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com JOHNSON CONTROLS: $17.5MM Settlement in Novin Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL NOVIN, et al., v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00046-PP (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Pamela Pepper entered an order granting unopposed motion for preliminary approval, certifying Rule 23 class for purposes of settlement administration and setting fairness hearing. The court preliminarily certifies a Rule 23 class as follows: The Rule 23 Class. "All individuals, as listed on Exhibit A, who were employed by The Defendant Johnson Controls, Inc. as commissioned salespersons and subject to the transition from the Fiscal Year 2023 Commission Sales Incentive Plan to the Fiscal Year 2024 Sales Incentive Plan (the "Transition"), excluding all individuals who are pursuing claims pertaining to the Transition through separate counsel, or who have settled such claims." The court appoints Daniel Novin, Stewart Swander, Timothy Butler, Reid Begnoche, Dustin Brown, Jeffrey Erker, Sam Klumpers, Gary Gray, Christopher Johnston, Joseph Perea, Brian Reis, Mark Zip, Patrick Mooney, David Howze, Scott McCollam, Matt Carville, Ricky Scott, Michael Migliaccio, Keith Wahl, William Roberts and Froilan Garma as class representatives for the settlement class. The court appoints HKM Employment Attorneys, LLP and Hawks Quindel, S.C. as class counsel. The court approves the parties' notice of class action settlement— attached to the settlement agreement as Exhibit D—for distribution to all putative members of the Rule 23 class. The court approves distribution by mail and email as valid and sufficient notice. The court orders the parties to appear for a fairness hearing on Dec. 4, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. The class resolution is superior because, except for the claims of thirteen individuals who have filed separate litigation, the proposed class will resolve approximately 99.3% of potential claims. The plaintiffs represent that hundreds of the putative class members had fewer than $1,000 in damages, and that the median class member has a potential recovery around $11,000. Id. at 32. The small amount at stake for those individuals makes the class action a superior method of resolving the claims. The court will certify the class under Rule 23(b)(3) for settlement purposes. Within 45 days of a court order approving settlement, the defendant must pay $17,500,000 to be allocated as follows: $50,000 for the contingency and ongoing cost fund; $12,053,000 for the class settlement fund; $147,000 for service payments to the class representatives ($7,000 each to the individual plaintiffs); and $5,250,000 for attorneys’ fees and costs (30% of the fund). Johnson produces electronics and HVAC equipment. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CRyhsO at no extra charge.[CC] JONATHAN SIMKHAI: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JONATHAN SIMKHAI INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07730 (S.D.N.Y., September 18, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant failed to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. Headquartered in West Hollywood, CA, Jonathan Simkhai Inc. owns and operates the website, https://simkhai.com, which offers clothing and footwearfor sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, New York 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal JOSHINE INC: Prinsloo Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Joshine Inc. The case is styled as Suziana Prinsloo, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Joshine Inc. doing business as: Lovelix, Case No. 3:25-cv-02705-AJB-DDL (S.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. Joshine Inc. doing business as Lovelix -- https://vallartasupermarkets.com/en/ -- specialize in handcrafted alcohol-alternative beverages including premium mocktails, kava drinks, hemp-derived Delta 9 beverages, and a full espresso bar.[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 JUVIA'S PLACE: Ford Sues Over Website's Non-Compliance With ADA --------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA FORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Juvia's Place, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11311 (N.D. Ill., September 18, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website contains significant access barriers that made it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Moreover, the Defendant failed or refuse to remove these access barriers to its website, denying blind individuals with equal access to the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through its website, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Headquartered in Secacus, NJ, Juvia's Place, LLC owns and operates the website, https://www.juviasplace.com, which offers Africa-inspired makeup products for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alison Chan, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 (929) 442-2154 E-mail: Achan@ealg.law JW PEI: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Martinez Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JW PEI INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-07778 (S.D.N.Y., September 18, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to make its website in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations 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. JW Pei Inc. owns and operates the website, https://www.jwpei.com, which offers clothing, footwear & accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. 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 KENDALL VILLAGE: Pardo Sues Over Property's ADA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. KENDALL VILLAGE ASSOCIATES, LTD. and APOCALYPSE BBQ, LLC D/B/A APOCALYPSE BBQ, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-24275-XXXX (S.D. Fla., September 18, 2025) is a class action seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' commercial property and commercial BBQ restaurant business have architectural barriers that denied Plaintiff the access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property. Kendall Village Associates, Ltd. owns and operates a commercial property in Miami, FL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com jr@ajperezlawgroup.com L'OREAL USA: Kim Sues Over False and Misleading Email Marketing --------------------------------------------------------------- Sohyun Kim, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. L'OREAL USA S/D, INC., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, Case No. 25-2-10335-31 (Wash. Super. Ct., Snohomish Cty., Oct. 13, 2025), is brought against Defendant for false and misleading email marketing. The Defendant sends emails that advertise "free gifts" in their subject lines, but the gift is never actually free, and is always contingent on a minimum purchase. For example, on August 26, 2024, The Defendant sent Named Plaintiff Kim an email with the subject line: "ENDS TONIGHT: 30% OFF + Free Gift!" However, is not clear by examining the subject line that the "free" gift is contingent upon the recipient making a minimum purchase. In fact, only in the body of the email does the Defendant reveal that a recipient is required to spend $120 in order to receive the free gift promised in the subject line. The Defendant also sends marketing emails that misrepresent the duration of given promotions, in an apparent effort to drive sales by creating a false sense of urgency. The subject line of these kinds of emails falsely claims that a certain sale or discount is time-limited, such as "FINAL HOURS" or "ENDS TONIGHT," or "Last Chance," when, in reality, the offer lasts longer than advertised. By sending emails with subject lines containing false and misleading information to Named Plaintiff and the Class, the Defendant violates WCEMA. By sending these false and misleading emails, The Defendant intends to deceive the recipients. The Plaintiff brings this action as a class action on behalf of persons residing in Washington, to whom The Defendant sent emails with false and/or misleading subject lines, says the complaint. The Plaintiff receives emails from Lancôme at a gmail.com email address. L'Oreal operates several brands as part of its corporate structure, including Lancome.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ellery Johannessen, Esq. JOHANNESSEN LAW, PLLC 5400 California Ave. SW, Suite B Seattle, WA 98136 Phone: (206) 594-0500 Email: ellery@eaj-law.com - and - Jeffrey C. Toppe, Esq. THE TOPPE FIRM, LLC 4900 O'Hear Avenue, Ste. 100 North Charleston, SC 29405 Phone: (323) 909-2011 Email: jct@toppefirm.com LEPRINO FOODS: $220,000 Settlement in Dominguez Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER DOMINGUEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a Colorado corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-01018-KES-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Grosjean entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class certification and approval of a class action settlement: 1. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification and preliminary approval is granted. 2. The following settlement class is conditionally certified: "All non-exempt employees of Leprino Foods Company who performed work in California from Oct. 17, 2023 through Feb. 24, 2024." 3. The Plaintiff Christopher Dominguez is conditionally approved as the class representative for the settlement class. 4. Kristen Agnew, Larry Lee, Max Gavron, and Kwanporn "Mai" Tulyathan of Diversity Law Group, P.C. are conditionally approved as class counsel for the settlement class. 5. The Court conditionally approves Phoenix Settlement Administrators as the settlement administrator and payment of $11,995.000 to it as costs. 6. The Court approves, and authorizes the issuance of, the notice (as submitted to the Court) and the parties shall implement the notice schedule set forth in the settlement agreement. 7. A final approval hearing is scheduled for Feb. 19, 2026, at 10:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean, in Courtroom 10 on the 6th Floor of the Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse. 8. A combined motion for final approval of the settlement, the class incentive award, and an award of attorney fees and costs shall be filed by no later than January 29, 2026. 9. The settlement administrative shall file a report regarding the outcome of the notice process by no later than January 29, 2026. On June 28, 2022, the Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a class action complaint in California Superior Court for the County of Kings. The Defendant removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Aug. 12, 2022. On March 29, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. The Gross Settlement Amount is $220,000. The GSA is premised on Defendant’s representation that Class Members received approximately 15,609 wage statements reflecting the payment of overtime and/or shift differential wages during the Class Period. Leprino produces cheese, lactose, whey protein and sweet whey. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=28QyRl at no extra charge.[CC] LINKEDIN CORP: Court Narrows Claims in J.P. Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.P., v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Case No. 5:24-cv-07586-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Davila entered an order granting in part and denying in part motion to dismiss with leave to amend. -- The Court grants Meta's motion to sever J.S.'s claims against it in Case No. 24-cv 07374. J.S.'s claims against Meta shall be related to and consolidated with In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litig., Case No. 3:22-cv-03580-WHO (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2022). J.S.'s claims against LinkedIn and Spring Fertility remain before this Court. -- The Court grants LinkedIn and Spring Fertility's motions to dismiss all claims in Case No. 24-cv-07374 with leave to amend. -- The Court grants LinkedIn's motion to dismiss the CIPA sections 631, 632 claims with leave to amend and denies LinkedIn's motion to dismiss the California constitutional privacy claim in Case No. 24-cv-07399. -- The Court grants LinkedIn's motions to dismiss the CIPA section 631 claims with leave to amend and denies LinkedIn's motions to dismiss the CIPA section 632 claims and California constitutional privacy claims in Case Nos. 24-cv-06842 and 24- cv-07586. Given the nature of LinkedIn's alleged conduct and the sensitivity of the information shared here, the Court finds this issue is also inappropriate to resolve at the pleadings stage. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiffs sufficiently pled "highly offensive" conduct. The Plaintiffs in four related cases bring putative class actions against the Defendant and others concerning alleged breaches of privacy involving the use of LinkedIn's "Insight Tag" software on health-related websites. LinkedIn is an American business and employment-oriented social networking service. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XaONtp at no extra charge.[CC] LINKEDIN CORP: Court Narrows Claims in L.B. Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.B., v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Case No. 5:24-cv-06832-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Davila entered an order granting in part and denying in part motion to dismiss with leave to amend. -- The Court grants Meta's motion to sever J.S.'s claims against it in Case No. 24-cv 07374. J.S.'s claims against Meta shall be related to and consolidated with In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litig., Case No. 3:22-cv-03580-WHO (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2022). J.S.'s claims against LinkedIn and Spring Fertility remain before this Court. -- The Court grants LinkedIn and Spring Fertility's motions to dismiss all claims in Case No. 24-cv-07374 with leave to amend. -- The Court grants LinkedIn's motion to dismiss the CIPA sections 631, 632 claims with leave to amend and denies LinkedIn's motion to dismiss the California constitutional privacy claim in Case No. 24-cv-07399. -- The Court grants LinkedIn's motions to dismiss the CIPA section 631 claims with leave to amend and denies LinkedIn's motions to dismiss the CIPA section 632 claims and California constitutional privacy claims in Case Nos. 24-cv-06842 and 24- cv-07586. Given the nature of LinkedIn's alleged conduct and the sensitivity of the information shared here, the Court finds this issue is also inappropriate to resolve at the pleadings stage. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiffs sufficiently pled "highly offensive" conduct. The Plaintiffs in four related cases bring putative class actions against the Defendant and others concerning alleged breaches of privacy involving the use of LinkedIn's "Insight Tag" software on health-related websites. LinkedIn is an American business and employment-oriented social networking service. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cZwdlC at no extra charge.[CC] LINKEDIN CORP: Court Narrows Claims in V.R. Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as V.R., v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Case No. 5:24-cv-07399-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Davila entered an order granting in part and denying in part motion to dismiss with leave to amend. -- The Court grants Meta's motion to sever J.S.'s claims against it in Case No. 24-cv 07374. J.S.'s claims against Meta shall be related to and consolidated with In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litig., Case No. 3:22-cv-03580-WHO (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2022). J.S.'s claims against LinkedIn and Spring Fertility remain before this Court. -- The Court grants LinkedIn and Spring Fertility's motions to dismiss all claims in Case No. 24-cv-07374 with leave to amend. -- The Court grants LinkedIn's motion to dismiss the CIPA sections 631, 632 claims with leave to amend and denies LinkedIn's motion to dismiss the California constitutional privacy claim in Case No. 24-cv-07399. -- The Court grants LinkedIn's motions to dismiss the CIPA section 631 claims with leave to amend and denies LinkedIn's motions to dismiss the CIPA section 632 claims and California constitutional privacy claims in Case Nos. 24-cv-06842 and 24- cv-07586. Given the nature of LinkedIn's alleged conduct and the sensitivity of the information shared here, the Court finds this issue is also inappropriate to resolve at the pleadings stage. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiffs sufficiently pled "highly offensive" conduct. The Plaintiffs in four related cases bring putative class actions against the Defendant and others concerning alleged breaches of privacy involving the use of LinkedIn's "Insight Tag" software on health-related websites. LinkedIn is an American business and employment-oriented social networking service. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HLiFZf at no extra charge.[CC] LOCKTON COMPANIES: Bid to Amend Case Schedule Partly OK'd --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as De Large v. Lockton Companies, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01056 (S.D. Cal., Filed April 25, 2025), the Hon. Judge Janis L. Sammartino entered an order granting in part and denying in part Parties' Joint Motion to Amend the Case Schedule: The Court does not find good cause for a six-month continuance of deadlines. Additionally, the Court finds the parties' request is overbroad, containing deadlines vacated by the Court's Amended Scheduling Order. The Court continues the class certification filing date by 90 days. Any motion for class certification shall be filed by April 23, 2025. All other provisions and deadlines set forth in the Court's Amended Scheduling Order remain in effect. The parties can discuss with the Court the progress of a global resolution at the Dec. 4, 2025, status conference. The nature of suit states Labor -- Other Labor Litigation. Lockton is an American company that provides insurance, risk management, and employee benefits.[CC] LOWE'S HOME: Amended Pleadings in Garner Suit Due April 21, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHRYN GARNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01592-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge entered an order setting the following deadlines and briefing schedule: Deadline Date Joinder of Parties deadline: March 31, 2026 Amended pleadings: April 21, 2026 Phase 1 fact discovery cutoff: 120 days after the Court issues the Scheduling Order Deadline to file motion for summary 45 days after Phase judgment regarding Plaintiff's 1 Fact Discovery individual claims: closes Deadline to file motion for class 180 days after the Certification: the Court issues an Order denying the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, in whole or in part, or 180 days after the deadline for the Defendant to file a motion for summary judgment, if the Defendant does not file a motion for summary judgment Lowe's retails home improvement, building materials, and home appliances. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KoZqO6 at no extra charge.[CC] MALIBU BOATS: Class Settlement in RBTCB Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RETIREE BENEFIT TRUST OF THE CITY OF BALTIMORE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MALIBU BOATS, INC., JACK SPRINGER, BRUCE BECKMAN, DAVID BLACK, and WAYNE WILSON, Case No. 1:24-cv-03254-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge entered an order preliminarily approving settlement and providing for notice. 1. Class Certification for Settlement Purposes – Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating the proposed Settlement, a Settlement Class consisting of: "all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired MBI Securities between Nov. 4, 2022 and May 1, 2024, inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), and were damaged thereby." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) Defendants; (2) the Officers or directors of MBI during the Settlement Class Period; (3) the Immediate Family members of any Defendant or any Officer or director of MBI during the Settlement Class Period; and (4) any entity that any Defendant owns or controls, or owned or controlled, during the Settlement Class Period. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are those persons and entities who submit valid and timely requests for exclusion in accordance with the provision below that is accepted by the Court. 2. The Lead Plaintiff is certified as Class Representative for the Settlement Class. The Court also appoints Lead Counsel as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class, pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement, as embodied in the Stipulation, as being fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class, subject to further consideration at the Settlement Hearing to be conducted as described below. 4. Jan. 27, 2026, at 3:00 P.M. The Settlement Hearing will be conducted at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Southern District of New York, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York at Room 1106. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 59. Malibu is an American manufacturer of recreational boats. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SvWaZX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Saltzman, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 10 Bank Street, Suite 882 White Plains, NY 10606 E-mail: jsaltzman@saxenawhite.com The Defendants are represented by: Sarah M. Lightdale, Esq. COOLEY LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 E-mail: slightdale@cooley.com MARK CUBAN: Bid to Certify Class in Robertson Tossed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robertson, et al., v. Mark Cuban, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-22538 (S.D. Fla., Filed Aug. 10, 2022), the Hon. Judge Roy K. Altman entered an order denying without prejudice Motion to Certify Class and Motion to Strike, given the forthcoming order on the Motion to Dismiss. The nature of suit states Securities Fraud. Mark Cuban is an American businessman and television personality. He is the former principal owner and current minority owner of the Dallas Mavericks of the National Basketball Association and co-owner of 2929.[CC] MERANI HOSPITALITY: Fabiano Alleges Labor Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------- BRENDA FABIANO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERANI HOSPITALITY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00894 (W.D.N.Y., September 18, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. In 2015, the Defendant hired Plaintiff to work as a banquet server. Allegedly, the Defendant has compensated Plaintiff at a sub-minimum rate. In addition, the Defendant has unlawfully retained the separate voluntary tips that Plaintiff and other banquet servers and bartenders received directly from customers. The Defendant has also diverted employee-earned tips by commingling them with its service-charge proceeds and distributing them to managers and supervisors all before making any distribution to banquet servers and bartenders. Merani Hospitality is a hotel management company that operates and provides staffing and employment services for the Double Tree by Hilton Hotel in Niagara Falls. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael V. Miller, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS - JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com MICHIGAN: Appeals Court Order in Bruneau Suit to Court of Appeals ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, GREAT LAKES, AND ENERGY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Joe Bruneau, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-000118-MM, in the Michigan Court of Claims. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were victims of the state Defendants' failed oversight and regulatory actions to the catastrophic damage from the Edenville Dam and Sanford Dam that flooded Midland and surrounding areas. The lawsuit seeks compensation for the loss of property, business losses, relocation expenses, and other losses. The appellate case is entitled Joe Bruneau vs. Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, Case No. 377760, in the Michigan Court of Appeals, filed on October 14, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees JOE BRUNEAU, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Mark Oszust, Esq. KOTZ SANGSTER WYSOCKI PC 400 Renaissance Center, Suite 3400 Detroit, MI 48243 Telephone: (313) 259-8782 Email: moszust@kotzsangster.com - and - Jayson E. Blake, Esq. SIMON, PLC 363 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 410 Troy, MI48084 Telephone: (248) 720-0290 Email: jblake@simonattys.com Defendants-Appellants DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, GREAT LAKES, AND ENERGY, et al. are represented by: Nathan A. Gambill, Esq. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 525 W. Ottawa St. P.O. Box 30755 Lansing, MI 48933 Telephone: (517) 335-7664 Email: gambilln@michigan.gov MICHIGAN: Appeals Court Order in Fagan Suit to Court of Appeals --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, GREAT LAKES, AND ENERGY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Pamela Fagan, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-000111-MM, in the Michigan Court of Claims. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were victims of the state Defendants' failed oversight and regulatory actions to the catastrophic damage from the Edenville Dam and Sanford Dam that flooded Midland and surrounding areas. The lawsuit seeks compensation for the loss of property, business losses, relocation expenses, and other losses. The appellate case is entitled Pamela Fagan vs. Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, Case No. 377757, in the Michigan Court of Appeals, filed on October 14, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees PAMELA FAGAN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM 950 West University Dr., Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 845-1350 Email: epm@miller.la Defendants-Appellants DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, GREAT LAKES, AND ENERGY, et al. are represented by: Nathan A. Gambill, Esq. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 525 W. Ottawa St. P.O. Box 30755 Lansing, MI 48933 Telephone: (517) 335-7664 Email: gambilln@michigan.gov MICHIGAN: Appeals Court Order in Krieger Suit to Court of Appeals ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, GREAT LAKES, AND ENERGY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled David Krieger, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-000094-MM, in the Michigan Court of Claims. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were victims of the state Defendants' failed oversight and regulatory actions to the catastrophic damage from the Edenville Dam and Sanford Dam that flooded Midland and surrounding areas. The lawsuit seeks compensation for the loss of property, business losses, relocation expenses, and other losses. The appellate case is entitled David Krieger vs. Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, Case No. 377754, in the Michigan Court of Appeals, filed on October 14, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees DAVID KRIEGER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael L. Pitt, Esq. PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER & RIVERS 117 West 4th St., Ste. 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 398-9800 Defendants-Appellants DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, GREAT LAKES, AND ENERGY, et al. are represented by: Nathan A. Gambill, Esq. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 525 W. Ottawa St. P.O. Box 30755 Lansing, MI 48933 Telephone: (517) 335-7664 Email: gambilln@michigan.gov MICHIGAN: Appeals Court Order in Zelenak Suit to Court of Appeals ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, GREAT LAKES, AND ENERGY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Daryl Zelenak, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-000151-MM, in the Michigan Court of Claims. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were victims of the state Defendants' failed oversight and regulatory actions to the catastrophic damage from the Edenville Dam and Sanford Dam that flooded Midland and surrounding areas. The lawsuit seeks compensation for the loss of property, business losses, relocation expenses, and other losses. The appellate case is entitled Daryl Zelenak vs. Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, Case No. 377763, in the Michigan Court of Appeals, filed on October 14, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees DARYL ZELENAK, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Christopher P. Desmond, Esq. VEN JOHNSON LAW, PLC Buhl Building 535 Griswold Street, Suite 2600 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (855) 836-3444 Defendants-Appellants DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, GREAT LAKES, AND ENERGY, et al. are represented by: Nathan A. Gambill, Esq. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 525 W. Ottawa St. P.O. Box 30755 Lansing, MI 48933 Telephone: (517) 335-7664 Email: gambilln@michigan.gov MICHIGAN: Appeals Pleasant Beach Suit Ruling to Court of Appeals ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, GREAT LAKES, AND ENERGY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Pleasant Beach Mobile Home Resort LLC, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-000156-MM, in the Michigan Court of Claims. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were victims of the state Defendants' failed oversight and regulatory actions to the catastrophic damage from the Edenville Dam and Sanford Dam that flooded Midland and surrounding areas. The lawsuit seeks compensation for the loss of property, business losses, relocation expenses, and other losses. The appellate case is entitled Pleasant Beach Mobile Home Resort LLC vs. Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, Case No. 377764, in the Michigan Court of Appeals, filed on October 14, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees PLEASANT BEACH MOBILE HOME RESORT LLC, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Emily M. Peacock, Esq. OLSMAN MACKENZIE PEACOCK & WALLACE 2684 West Eleven Mile Road Berkley, MI 48072 Defendants-Appellants DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, GREAT LAKES, AND ENERGY, et al. are represented by: Nathan A. Gambill, Esq. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 525 W. Ottawa St. P.O. Box 30755 Lansing, MI 48933 Telephone: (517) 335-7664 Email: gambilln@michigan.gov MONTEREY COUNTY, CA: Bid to Enforce Settlement Deal Denied ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSE HERNANDEZ, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF MONTEREY; MONTEREY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; and CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, INC., Case No. 5:13-cv-02354-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement agreement and implementation plans against the county. While the Court is sympathetic to the Plaintiffs' frustration with the continued inadequacy of health care at the Jail, and the potential complications that may result from the County's retention of a new health care provider, the Plaintiffs' motion is not well-taken. The Settlement Agreement simply cannot reasonably be read to mean that the County was responsible for ensuring that CFMG's Implementation Plan was effectuated, or vice versa. The Plaintiffs' own conduct reflects their understanding that CFMG alone was obligated to comply with the CFMG Implementation Plan, as Plaintiffs chose to bring their prior motion to enforce the CFMG Implementation Plan only against the County. The Plaintiffs easily could have brought their prior motion to enforce against both Defendants. Based on this record, it appears likely that the Plaintiffs' current attempt to wrap the County into the prior civil contempt findings against CFMG stems from the fact that CFMG will not be the Jail health care provider after the end of the year. Through this class action, Plaintiffs and their counsel have spent more than a dozen years seeking to ensure that inmates of the Monterey County Jail (“the Jail”) receive adequate health care, accommodations for disabilities, and protection from violence. The Plaintiffs filed this class action in May 2013 on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated Jail inmates, alleging that the County and CFMG failed to provide adequate health care, reasonable accommodations for disabilities, and protection from violence. The Court granted class certification in January 2015, defining the class to include "all adult men and women who are now, or will be in the future, incarcerated in Monterey County Jail." Monterey is a county located on the Pacific coast in the U.S. state of California. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6d57Ct at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Miller Due Sept. 15, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Miller, et al., v. City of New York, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00065 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Jan. 5, 2023), the Hon. Judge Pamela K. Chen entered an order on motion for extension of time to complete discovery: -- The deadline to initiate the anticipated class certification motion is Sept. 15, 2026. -- All expert discovery shall be completed by Oct. 1, 2026. -- Certification of the completion of all discovery shall be filed by Oct. 8, 2026. -- Should the anticipated class certification motion be initiated earlier than Sept. 15, 2026. -- The Plaintiffs shall serve their opening expert report(s) on the same date and shall confer with Defendants to set a reasonable expert discovery period. The nature of suit states Civil Rights Act. New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean.[CC] NEW YORK: Cymbler Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------- CAROL S. CYMBLER is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Carol S. Cymbler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. New York State, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-2792, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The suit is brought against the Defendants for violation of the United States and New York constitutions by installing and operating red light cameras in Nassau County. The Plaintiff also brought claims for fraud, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, abuse of process, concert of action and racketeering. On Aug. 30, 2024, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and lack of standing. On Sept. 9, 2025, Judge Ann M. Donnelly entered an Order granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss the federal claims. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's state law claims. The appellate case is entitled Cymbler v. New York State, Case No. 25-2495, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 10, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CAROL S. CYMBLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Benjamin Joseph Fischer, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN J. FISCHER, PLLC 213-37 39th Avenue, Suite 147 Bayside, NY 11361 Defendants-Appellees NASSAU COUNTY, et al. are represented by: John Carnevale, Esq. OFFICE OF THE NASSAU COUNTY ATTORNEY LITIGATION BUREAU 1 West St. Mineola, NY 11501 NEW YORK: Seeks to Hold Dunn's Bid for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- 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-MAD-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order to hold the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel in abeyance until such time as an answer is filed. A prior, timely request was made to Magistrate Judge Stewart, who directed the Defendants to seek the requested relief, which pertains to a dispositive motion. This request is made with the Plaintiffs' consent. A response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel was due on Oct. 1, 2025. The Defendants originally sought the relief requested herein by letter motion dated Sept. 26, 2025. To hold the motion in abeyance would allow the parties to continue to work toward a resolution of this matter. As the Court is aware, a preliminary injunction was entered on Sept. 15, 2025, which also obviates the need for haste. Department of Corrections and Community Supervision is responsible for the confinement and rehabilitation of approximately 52,000 inmates held at sixty-two correctional facilities throughout the State. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tTZXNh at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Benjamin L. Loefke, Esq. OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL Litigation Bureau | The Capitol Albany NY 12224 Telephone: (518) 776-2739 E-mail: Benjamin.Loefke@ag.ny.gov OPW FUELING: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Response ----------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Louise Flanagan entered an order granting the Defendant's unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. The Court further entered an order that the Defendant's deadline to respond to the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify as a collective action and for a court-authorized notice to be issued under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act is extended to Nov. 22, 2025. The Defendant designs and manufactures fueling equipment. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fwEvan at no extra charge.[CC] PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Discovery Cutoff Extended in Kuhk Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kuhk v. Playstudios, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00460 (W.D. Wash., Filed April 5, 2024), the Hon. Judge Tana Lin entered an order extending the Discovery Cutoff until after the Court rules on Plaintiff's motion for class certification and Defendant's Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Parties shall file a joint status report within 30 days of the Court's ruling on the aforementioned motions with a revised proposed case schedule. The nature of suit states Statutory Actions. Playstudios operates as a software company.[CC] POWER HOME: Landy Wins Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Landy v. Power Home Technologies, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00241 (D.R.I., Filed June 8, 2023), the Hon. Judge William E. Smith entered an order granting as unopposed Motion to Certify Class. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Power is a home security and smart home company.[CC] RDO EQUIPMENT: Munoz Seeks Final OK of $2.04MM Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIMON MUNOZ and GIANCARLO BLANCO on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, v. RDO EQUIPMENT CO.; and DOES 1- 100, Case No. 1:23-cv-00979-DAD-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) confirming certification of the Class for settlement purposes only; (2) finally approving the settlement embodied in the joint stipulation and settlement agreement, (3) confirming Phoenix settlement administrators as the settlement administrator and granting the requested fee for its services as settlement administrator; (4) finally approving the private attorneys general act of 2004 payment; and (5) entering judgment. The Class is comprised of: "all current and former non-exempt, hourly employees who were employed by RDO in California at any time from Apr. 25, 2019 through May 11, 2024." RDO shall pay a gross settlement amount of $2,040,000 to fully and finally settle the matter. RDO operates as an industrial machinery and equipment wholesale company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4oWymo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Mara, Esq. Jill Vecchi, Esq. MARA LAW FIRM, PC 2650 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 302 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 234-2833 Facsimile: (619) 234-4048 E-mail: dmara@maralawfirm.com jvecchi@maralawfirm.com - and - Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. William Wilkinson, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com statavos@justicelawcorp.com wwilkinson@justicelawcorp.com RED TIE: Class Cert Hearing in Sandell Suit Due March 27, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR SANDELL ET AL, V. RED TIE LLC ET AL, Case No. 2:25-cv-04864-WLH-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hsu entered a civil pretrial schedule and trial order: Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend Dec. 5, 2025 Pleadings / Add Parties Last Date to Hear Motion for Class Mar. 27, 2026 Certification Fact Discovery Cut-Off June 5, 2026 Expert Discovery Cut-Off July 6, 2026 Last Date to Hear Daubert Motions Aug. 14, 2026 A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WU2TAd at no extra charge.[CC] RICHMOND, IN: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Craig Suit to 7th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- THE CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Tushawn Craig and Marquetta Stokes, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The City of Richmond, Indiana, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-1575, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. This lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for personal injury and property damage claims arising out of an industrial fire within the City of Richmond, Indiana. The Plaintiffs brought seven separate claims for relief: (1) strict liability for engaging in ultrahazardous activities, (2) negligence, (3) res ipsa loquitor, (4) private nuisance, (5) trespass, (6) battery, and (7) punitive damages. The Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Tanya Walton Pratt granted on Sept. 29, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Tushawn Craig and Marquetta Stokes, et al. v. The City of Richmond, Indiana, Case No. 25-8027, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on October 14, 2025. [BN] Defendant-Petitioner THE CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA is represented by: Andrew M. McNeil, Esq. Bradley R. Sugarman, Esq. Seth M. Thomas, Esq. Jackson L. Schroeder, Esq. BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS LLP 111 Monument Circle, Suite 2700 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 684-5000 Email: amcneil@boselaw.com bsugarman@boselaw.com sthomas@boselaw.com jschroeder@boselaw.com SAFEWAY INC: Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Due March 20, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Margaretis v. Safeway Inc Case No. 1:25-cv-01014 (D. Colo. Filed March 28, 2025), the Hon. Judge Regina M. Rodriguez entered an order adopting the Joint Status Report as follows: -- The affirmative expert disclosure deadline is Feb. 20, 2026. -- The rebuttal expert disclosure deadline is March 20, 2026. -- Discovery cutoff is April 20, 2026. -- The deadline to file a motion for class certification is May 27, 2026. The nature of suit states Diversity -- Employment. Safeway is a major American supermarket chain.[CC] SALT LAKE CITY, UT: 10th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Jacobs Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled KRISTIN JACOBS, legal guardian of E.J.; AMANDA SANDY, legal guardian of H.S.; DISABILITY LAW CENTER, Plaintiffs - Appellants v. SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT; BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOLS, Defendants - Appellees, COUNCIL OF PARENT ATTORNEYS AND ADVOCATES, INC.; NATIONAL DISABILITY RIGHTS NETWORK; THE ARC OF THE UNITED STATES, Amici Curiae, Case No. 23-4058 (10th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reverses the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims. The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (D.C. No. 2:21-CV-00706-JNP). The Tenth Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Nancy Moritz, David Ebel, and Veronica Rossman. Circuit Judge Ebel wrote the Opinion. The Plaintiffs -- two elementary school students with intellectual disabilities and their advocate -- challenge the manner in which Defendant Salt Lake City School District educates its intellectually disabled students. Plaintiff Disability Law Center ("DLC") is a non-profit corporation that is a federally authorized and funded organization under the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities Act ("PADD"). The Plaintiffs allege the District automatically places students with intellectual disabilities in self-contained special education classes in a few designated schools located throughout the district, without first making an individualized assessment whether, as for each student, a more appropriate educational placement would instead be in a general education classroom, supported by supplementary special education services. The Plaintiffs contend that the District's failure to make an individualized placement determination for each intellectually disabled student violates the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act ("IDEA"), as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("RA"). The district court dismissed all of the Plaintiffs' causes of action at the outset of this case, primarily under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), after construing the Plaintiffs' claims to be seeking only placement in their neighborhood schools, relief which the Tenth Circuit has already determined is unavailable under these statutes. The Plaintiffs assert a claim under the IDEA on behalf of themselves and similarly situated students. The Panel disagrees with the district court's interpretation of the Plaintiffs' claims as limited to seeking only to attend their neighborhood schools. The Panel concludes, instead, that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated plausible claims for relief under all three statutes by alleging that the District fails to make individualized educational placement determinations for each intellectually disabled student. Therefore, having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1291, the Court of Appeals reverses the district court's decision to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims and remands the case to the district court for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals reverses the district court's decision to dismiss the Plaintiffs' IDEA, ADA, and RA claims based on allegations that the District, in implementing its "hub" system, fails to make individualized educational placement determinations for each intellectually disabled student. The Panel says the individual Plaintiffs, E.J. and H.S., did not allege IDEA claims challenging the hearing officers' rulings in their individual administrative proceedings. The Panel remands this case for further proceedings consistent with this decision. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Oct. 9, 2025, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4e7nejh6 from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Laura Henrie -- lhenrie@disabilitylawcenter.org -- Michelle Marquis -- mmarquis@disabilitylawcenter.org -- Katie Cox -- kcox@disabilitylawcenter.org -- Maya V. Anderson -- mvanderson@disabilitylawcenter.org -- Disability Law Center, in Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Plaintiffs-Appellants. Joan M. Andrews -- jandrews@fabianlaw.com -- Matthew S. Brahana -- mbrahana@fabianvancott.com -- Fabian Vancott, in Salt Lake City, Utah, the for Defendants-Appellees. Selene Almazan-Altobelli -- selene@copaa.org -- Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, in Towson, Maryland, and Ellen M. Saideman -- esaideman@gmail.com -- Law Office of Ellen Saideman, Barrington, in Rhode Island, filed an amicus brief on behalf of Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc., National Disability Rights Network, and Arc of the United States, in support of the Plaintiffs-Appellants. SAPUTO INC: Filing for Collective & Class Cert Due Oct. 1, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE ROHDE and LORI ZARNEKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SAPUTO, INC., and SAPUTO CHEESE U.S.A., INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00625-BHL (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Brett H. Ludwig entered a scheduling order as follows: -- The parties' initial disclosures as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) must be exchanged on or before Oct. 31, 2025. -- Amendments to the pleadings may be filed without leave of Court on or before Nov. 28, 2025. -- All discovery of fact and expert witnesses on all issues other than damages shall be completed by Sept. 15, 2026. -- The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for collective and class certification is Oct. 1, 2026. The Defendants reserve the right to file motions to strike class and collective allegations or to deny collect and class certification on or before Oct. 1, 2026. -- Motions for summary judgment must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, Civil L.R. 56 and Civil L.R. 7 and shall be served and filed on or before Oct. 1, 2026. Saputo manufactures dairy and grocery products. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EdUAYd at no extra charge.[CC] SEAN REEVES: Convisser Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDE DAVID CONVISSER, v. SEAN REEVES, Chief, Albemarle County, Virginia Police Department, ET AL., Case No. 3:25-cv-00065-JHY-JCH (W.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class action and appointing the undersigned as the plaintiffs' class counsel. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vIrQyu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Claude David Convisser, Esq. Charlottesville, VA 22906 Telephone: (703) 438-0071 E-mail: cdc@popdiesel.com SEYBOTH TEAM: Iudiciani Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Louis Iudiciani, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. The Seyboth Team Real Estate Inc. d/b/a Century 21 Limitless, Case No. 1:23-cv-00443-MSM-AEM (D.R.I.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class action, and certifying the following class: "All persons throughout the United States (1) to whom The Seyboth Team Real Estate Inc. d/b/a Century 21 Limitless delivered, or caused to be delivered, more than one text message within a 12-month period, promoting The Seyboth Team Real Estate Inc. d/b/a Century 21 Limitless', or its business Partners', goods or services, (2) where the person's residential telephone number had been registered with the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days before The Seyboth Team Real Estate Inc. d/b/a Century 21 Limitless delivered, or caused to be delivered, at least two of the text messages within the 12-month period, (3) between Oct. 27, 2019 and the date of class certification; and (4) whose telephone numbers are included on the Class Data." Century 21 is a real estate company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X41st8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher M. Lefebvre, Esq. THE CONSUMER AND FAMILY LAW CENTER OF CLAUDE F. LEFEBVRE & CHRISTOPHER M. LEFEBVRE, P.C. 2 Dexter Street Pawtucket, RI 02860 Telephone: (401) 728-6060 E-mail: Chris@lefebvrelaw.com - and - Alex D. Kruzyk, Esq. Logan A. Pardell, Esq. PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC 7500 Rialto Blvd., Suite 1-250 Austin, TX 78735 Telephone: (561) 726-8444 E-mail: akruzyk@pkglegal.com lpardell@pkglegal.com SOURCE USA: Jimenez Sues Over Unwanted Marketing Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- ISAAC CORTEZ JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOURCE USA INC D/B/A SOURCEBMX, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02450-WQH-AHG (S.D. Cal., September 18, 2025) alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Between October 29, 2024, and April 24, 2025, the Defendant allegedly made telephone solicitations to Plaintiff's cellular telephone. The Defendant's marketing text messages were sent before 8:00 AM or after 9:00 PM. However, the Plaintiff never signed any type authorization permitting or allowing Defendant to send him telephone solicitations before 8:00 AM or after 9:00 PM. Headquartered in Louisville, KY, Source USA, Inc. sells BMX bikes, parts and accessories. [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 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com SPORTSENGINE INC: Morales Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINE MORALES, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Christine Morales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SportsEngine, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-2971, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit is brought against the Defendant for fraud claims. On Aug. 23, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Nov. 12, 2024. On Sept. 17, 2025, Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke entered an Order dismissing the Plaintiffs' statutory claims under California and Arkansas law because the parties' choice of law provision dictates that all claims are governed by New York law. The Defendant's motion to strike is denied as moot. The appellate case is entitled Morales v. SportsEngine, Inc., Case No. 25-2499, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 10, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants CHRISTINE MORALES, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 STAKE CENTER: Bid to Certify Class Referred to Magistrate Judge --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Holtsclaw v. Stake Center Locating, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00490 (D. Colo., Filed Feb. 20, 2024), the Hon. Judge Regina M. Rodriguez entered an order referring Plaintiff's motion to Certify Class filed by Stake Center Locating, LLC to Mag. Judge Susan Prose. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) involving Minimum Wage or Overtime Compensation. Stake is engaged in high-risk infrastructure and fiber optic network locating.[CC] TONYA ANDREWS: Petitioner Must File Bid for Aleman Bond Hearing --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Y.S.G., v. TONYA ANDREWS, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01884-SCR (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Riordan entered an order that the petitioner shall submit a copy of his 2023 motion for an Aleman bond hearing along with any accompanying exhibits submitted in support thereof by Oct. 15, 2025. Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding through counsel in this federal habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court has reviewed the exhibits submitted in support of petitioner's section 2241 petition as well as his pending motion to enforce the court's preliminary injunction. The court deems it necessary to expand the record of petitioner’s immigration bond proceedings pursuant to Rule 7(a) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kIDdKr at no extra charge.[CC] TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Cert. Bid in Mixon Suit Due Nov. 19, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEM MIXON, TERRENCE LOGAN, RONALD SMITH, PAUL FLICK, MELISSA SINDONI, WHITNEY SEXTON, CLINTON MAYBERRY, CARL FOSTER, KEITH WOODALL, ROBERT REDMOND, ANDREW HALPNER, ANTHONY DE LOSADA, PATRICK TWYMAN, JAMES VEREEKE, STEPHEN DISCHINO, AND STEVE SNOWDEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-01018-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Mazzant entered an order regarding Parties Joint Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order: Event Deadline Close of fact discovery: April 17, 2026 Close of expert discovery: July 31, 2026 Date by which Plaintiffs must file motion Sept. 11, 2026 for class certification: Date by which the Defendants must file Oct. 13, 2026 response in opposition to motion for class certification: Reply in further support of motion for Oct. 27, 2026 class certification: Hearing on class certification and Nov. 19, 2026 dispositive motions: Toyota is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DoQDhQ at no extra charge.[CC] TOYOTA MOTOR: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Dong Due Dec. 19 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YANG DONG, SARA HADI and JUN IMAIZUMI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., a California corporation and TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., a California corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-09613-JLS-SSC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Staton entered an order granting in part joint stipulation to modify scheduling order: The Court has considered the parties' Joint Stipulation to Modify Scheduling Order. The parties submit that "extensions of the class certification briefing deadlines are necessary given the volume of documents produced and the need to complete depositions prior to class certification briefing, and, that as currently constructed, the Scheduling Order requires full briefing on class certification before expert reports are due, which would deprive Plaintiffs of the ability to integrate their experts' opinions into their class certification application." The Court recognizes that the parties have engaged in ongoing discovery, but it also notes that the Oct. 24, 2025, deadline for moving for class certification was already significantly extended beyond the Court's presumptive schedule of 6 to 9 months after the scheduling conference. ]The Court grants in part the Stipulation and modifies the Scheduling Order deadlines as follows: Event Deadline Last day to file a motion for class Dec. 19, 2025 certification: Last day to file an opposition to Jan. 30, 2026 motion for class certification: Last day to file a reply to motion for March 6, 2026 class certification: Last day to file Daubert motions: May 15, 2026 Last day to file motions in limine: June 19, 2026 Final pretrial conference: July 17, 2026 Toyota is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nckW84 at no extra charge.[CC] TOYOTA MOTOR: Seeks to Dismiss Wade Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN WADE, DAVID PERILSTEIN, MING CHAO, KATHRYN SCHAUBERGER, FRANKLIN HUFFMAN, DANIELLE BULS, MICHELLE ATKINS, CLAUDIA DIEZ, MATTHEW KULL, AND JOSEPH GILL, v. TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA, INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.; AND SUBARU OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01071-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on Jan. 8, 2026, will move the Court for an order: -- dismissing the amended complaint as to the Toyota Defendants, and each claim, filed by the Plaintiffs; and -- striking the nationwide class action allegations pursuant to Rule 23(d)(1)(D) and Rule 12(f). As an initial matter, all clams fail because the Plaintiffs do not plausibly plead an alleged defect—the foundation for all claims—under Rule 8 and well settled pleading standards. Lastly, the Plaintiffs' nationwide class allegations also must be dismissed or stricken because Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue claims under the laws of states to which they have no connection and because Plaintiffs fail to identify any law that could apply to their nationwide claim or that they meet all such elements. The Plaintiffs purchased or leased Toyota bZ4X electric vehicles in five different states between late 2023 and January 2025. They allege that each vehicle's 12-volt battery died unexpectedly. Toyota is the operating subsidiary that oversees all operations of the Toyota Motor Corporation in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mWzNib at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Lisa R. Weddle, Esq. Brian M. Ercole, Esq. Mark A. Feller, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612-2500 Facsimile: (213) 612-2501 E-mail: lisa.weddle@morganlewis.com brian.ercole@morganlewis.com mark.feller@morganlewis.com TRADER JOE'S: Class Cert Bid Filing in Gazonni Due Feb. 23, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORMA O. GAZONNI, v. TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, Case No. 1:25-cv-23827-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Martinez entered an order setting civil trial date and pretrial schedule, requiring mediation, and referring certain motions to Magistrate Judge as follows: Motions to join additional parties, amend Feb. 23, 2026 the complaint, and class certification. Parties shall exchange expert witness Mar. 23, 2026 summaries and reports. All discovery, including expert discovery, June 11, 2026 shall be completed. Mediation shall be completed. Aug. 20, 2026 All pretrial motions and memoranda of Sept. 4, 2026 law must be filed. Trader is an American grocery store chain known for its private label products. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BTV2n7 at no extra charge.[CC] TRANS UNION: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Docs in Kaplan Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLEY KAPLAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02438-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their uncontested motion to seal documents in connection with the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. On Jan. 8, 2025, the Court entered a Stipulated Protective Order governing the disclosure and use of confidential and highly confidential information. Under the terms of the Protective Order, when a party is filing "Confidential Information including but not limited to pleadings, memoranda, transcripts, and discovery responses with contain or refer to any Confidential Information, such Confidential Information shall be filed under seal or with redactions." TransUnion is an American consumer credit reporting agency. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 6, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k8fBr4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Samantha L. Southall, Esq. Patrick D. Doran, Esq. Argia J. DiMarco, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC Two Liberty Place 50 S. 16th Street, Suite 3200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 665-8700 Facsimile: (215) 665-8760 E-mail: samantha.southall@bipc.com patrick.doran@bipc.com argia.dimarco@bipc.com TRIVIUM ALUMINUM: Herns Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- RHEA G. HERNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRIVIUM ALUMINUM PACKAGING USA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01982-JRA (N.D. Ohio, September 18, 2025) seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act of 1939, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a lithographer beginning in approximately January 2024 until approximately June 2025. Allegedly, the Plaintiff was not paid overtime at a rate of 150% its respective regular rates for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Headquartered in Youngstown, OH, Trivium Aluminum Packaging USA Corporation offers metal packaging products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anna R. Caplan, Esq. Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Nickole K. Iula, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: acaplan@barkanmeizlish.com bderose@barkanmeizlish.com niula@barkanmeizlish.com TS DINING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, James Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- Jillanda James, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. TS Dining Group, LLC and Joel Testa, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-01985-JRA (S.D. Ohio, September 18, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Revised Code Annotated by failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees all earned minimum and overtime wages. The Plaintiff was employed as a bartender at Defendants' Butcher and Sprout restaurant from approximately January 2022 until approximately May 31, 2025. The Defendants allegedly violated FLSA and the Ohio law by enforcing a policy or practice of requiring servers and bartenders to perform non-tipped work that, even if it was related to their tipped occupation, was performed more than occasionally or part of the time. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated current and former tipped employees of the Defendants who were compensated at a rate less than the applicable Ohio and federal minimum wage on account of receiving tips in a given workweek. TS Dining Group, LLC owns and operates several restaurants and bars throughout Northeast Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 ½ N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com UNITED STATES: Doster Files Writ of Certiorari Petition to Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------- HUNTER DOSTER, et al. filed on October 14, 2025, a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, under Case No. 25-446, seeking a review of a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dated May 12, 2025, in the case captioned Hunter Doster, et al., Petitioners vs. Troy E. Meink, Secretary of the Air Force, et al., Case No. 24-3404. Plaintiffs-Petitioners HUNTER DOSTER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Thomas B. Bruns, Esq. BRUNS, CONNELL, VOLLMAR & ARMSTRONG, LLC 4555 Lake Forest Dr., Suite 330 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 312-9890 Email: tbruns@bcvalaw.com Defendants-Respondents TROY E. MEINK, Secretary of the Air Force, et al. are represented by: D. John Sauer, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-2217 Email: supremectbriefs@usdoj.gov UNITED STATES: Fogg Appeals Denied Reconsideration Bid to D.C. Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW FOGG is taking an appeal from a court order denying his motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled Matthew Fogg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pamela J. Bondi, U.S. Attorney General, Department of Justice, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00792-CRC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In March 2024, Fogg filed this putative class action, alleging that the class counsel in the administrative action he filed against the Marshals Service with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") did not adequately protect the class's interests before the EEOC. Fogg also brings an individual retaliatory harassment claim. On Oct. 15, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to stay. On May 28, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for injunction. On June 10, 2025, Clarence B. Brown filed a motion to intervene. On July 1, 2025, Judge Christopher R. Cooper entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion to stay and denying the Plaintiff's motion for injunction and Brown's motion to intervene. The Court ruled that interests in judicial economy favor a stay. Accordingly, the Court granted the government's motion to stay pending final approval of the settlement agreement and ordered the parties to promptly notify the Court following any such approval. Moreover, the Court found that Brown does not qualify for intervention as of right because the disposition of this action will not "impair or impede" a legally protectable interest "relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action." On July 23, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration the July 1 Order, which Judge Cooper denied on Aug. 8, 2025. In sum, the Court finds that the remainder of Fogg's motion "merely asserts arguments for reconsideration that the Court has already rejected on the merits." The Court therefore denied the motion. The appellate case is entitled Matthew Fogg v. Pamela Bondi, Case No. 25-5362, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on October 14, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MATTHEW FOGG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se. Defendant-Appellee PAMELA J. BONDI, U.S. Attorney General, Department of Justice, is represented by: DOJ Appellate Counsel U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-2000 UNITED STATES: Jones Balks at Illegal Community Service Program --------------------------------------------------------------- VONDA JONES, ROCHELLE ST. JOHN, CHRISTINA DAVIES, MARIA GARCIA PAGAN, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LORI CHAVEZ-DEREMER, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION, LORI FRAZIER BEARDEN, U.S. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, RUSSELL T. VOUGHT, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-12653-NMG (D. Mass., September 18, 2025) concerns the continued operation of an essential program created by Congress and administered by the Department of Labor program, the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP). For more than six decades, the Department of Labor executed the SCEP. However, this year, DOL allegedly changed course, upending the program and injecting chaos into the lives of tens of thousands of seniors nationwide whose work was suddenly cut short. On July 1, 2025, still without funds and hearing nothing more from the DOL, SCSEP programs shut down and tens of thousands of seniors nationwide were suddenly furloughed. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this suit on their own behalf and on behalf of the tens of thousands of similarly situated seniors to stave off these incredible harms and require the Department and the Office of Management and Budget to release already-appropriated SCSEP funds to continue four-year SCSEP grants as required by law. Headquartered in Washington DC, the Department of Labor is an executive agency that fosters, promotes, and develops the welfare of the wage earners, job seekers, and retirees. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kali Schellenberg, Esq. Steven Y. Bressler, Esq. DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION P.O. Box 34553 Washington, DC 20043 Telephone: (202) 448-9090 E-mail: kschellenberg@democracyforward.org sbressler@democracyforward.org - and - Daniel F. Jacobson, Esq. Lynn D. Eisenberg, Esq. Kyla M. Snow, Esq. JACOBSON LAWYERS GROUP PLLC 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (301) 823-1148 E-mail: dan@jacobsonlawyersgroup.com VAN BUREN, MI: 6th Cir. Affirms Class Deal in Wayside Church Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirms the approval of the class settlement in the lawsuit titled WAYSIDE CHURCH, individually and on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, ANN MEDEMA, et al. (24-1598), Objector Plaintiffs - Appellants v. VAN BUREN COUNTY, individually and on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Defendants-Appellees. TAYLOR BEIGHTOL (24-1676), Proposed Intervenor-Appellant, Case Nos. 24-1598, 24-1676 (6th Cir.). The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The Sixth Circuit panel consists of Raymond Kethledge, Chad Readler, and Rachel Bloomekatz. Judge Readler delivered the opinion of the court in which Judge Kethledge and Bloomekatz concurred. Judge Kethledge delivered a separate concurring opinion. For years, counties in Michigan seized tax-delinquent homes, sold them, and then pocketed or gifted to others the windfall beyond the unpaid taxes. After considerable litigation, that practice met an unceremonious fate: It was declared unlawful three times over, first by the Michigan Supreme Court, then by this Court, and most recently by the U.S. Supreme Court (Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland County, 952 N.W.2d 434, 441 (Mich. 2020); Hall v. Meisner, 51 F.4th 185, 188 (6th Cir. 2022); Tyler v. Hennepin County, 143 S. Ct. 1369, 1376 (2023)). Wayside Church once owned a property in Van Buren County, located near Michigan's southwestern corner. But the church fell behind on its property taxes owed to the County, leaving $16,750 unpaid. To collect, the County foreclosed on the property. Following the foreclosure, the County sold the property for $206,000, far more than the amount of Wayside's property tax delinquency. Yet Michigan's General Property Tax Act authorized the County to keep the balance, which it did. In 2014, Wayside sued the County, claiming that the County's collection practices amounted to an uncompensated taking, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The church brought the case on its own behalf and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, naming the County as a representative of a class of similarly situated Michigan counties. The current chapter in this legal chronicle is a class action pursued against 43 Michigan counties, all located in the Western District of Michigan. The Named Plaintiffs along with the putative class sought to recover surplus proceeds from the sale of their properties by those counties. Following a decade of litigation, including 18 months of mediation, the parties reached a proposed resolution. But not everyone was satisfied. Over three dozen objectors challenged the settlement, asserting that the agreement was the product of collusion, and that continued settlement negotiations or a trial on the merits would have produced more favorable terms. The district court was unpersuaded. It certified the class, overruled the objections, and approved the settlement. The Court of Appeals now affirms. Circuit Judge Readler finds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlement. Nor did the district court commit a clear error of judgment in concluding the relief provided by the settlement was adequate. The negotiated resolution guaranteed class members 80% of their surplus proceeds and 64 cents on the dollar in actual recovery. The settlement, on the other hand, guaranteed a sizeable and immediate recovery for members of the class, many of whom had gone years without compensation. The Panel similarly sees no abuse of discretion in the district court's conclusion that the settlement agreement treats class members "equitably relative to each other," a required consideration under Rule 23(e)(2)(D) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Readler notes that the Named Plaintiffs and the class members were all compensated on a pro rata basis, with each receiving 80% of the surplus proceeds from the sale of their foreclosed property. Judge Readler explains that the equal pro rata recovery ensured that all claims were treated similarly, aligning the interests of all class members. The Panel does not think class counsel's fees undermine the settlement's fairness. Judge Readler says the district court evaluated the fees request under both the percentage-of-fund and lodestar methods, finding counsel's $6.85 million lodestar (i.e., hours reasonably worked multiplied by reasonable rates) fairly supported a $7.8 million award. That $7.8 million award reflects a modest enhancement--a 1.14 multiplier on counsel's lodestar--to account for the risk of nonpayment and the quality of results achieved. Multipliers of this size are within the range the Court of Appeals has previously upheld. Judge Readler points out that fees of this magnitude, reached after extensive adversarial mediation, are not disproportionate to the class relief achieved and did not divert value from absent members. The district court, thus, acted well within its discretion in concluding the fee award was reasonable. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Oct. 6, 2025, is available at https://tinyurl.com/478a89t7 from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Green Sues Over Unprotected Private Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- JONI JO GREEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02937-NYW (D. Colo., September 18, 2025) asserts claims arising from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was exposed to criminals, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. Headquartered in Fort Morgan, CO, Wakefield and Associates, LLC operates as a medical debtor collector that collects a wide variety of debt for its clients across the country. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com ZONI LANGUAGE: Ortega Conditional Cert Bid Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRINCESA ORTEGA and NATHALIA GARCIA, v. ZONI LANGUAGE CENTERS, INC., ZONI LANGUAGE CENTERS-FLUSHING, LLC, and JULIO NIETO, Case No. 1:24-cv-08223-DEH-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katharine Parker entered an order granting in part and denying in part motion for conditionally certifying the case as an Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action and authorizing notice to be sent to potential opt-in plaintiffs. A collective action is conditionally certified consisting of all student services representatives employed at all Zoni locations for the period commencing Oct. 29, 2021, through the date of this Opinion and Order. The parties shall meet and confer on notice and opt-in forms and submit revised forms to the Court for its approval within 14 days of this Opinion and Order. The Plaintiffs have satisfied the low burden for securing "conditional certification" for other student sales representatives. That is, there is sufficient factual information provided to send notice to other student sales representatives throughout all Zoni locations to alert them to this action and give them an opportunity to opt-in and assert a claim under the FLSA. In particular, they themselves worked as student sales representatives at multiple locations in New York and New Jersey and attested to experiencing similar pay and overtime practices and work conditions at all locations. Moreover, they have attested to having communications with other student sales representatives who reported similar experiences of not being paid for overtime or their commissions. The Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of themselves and a putative class and collective under Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and New York and New Jersey state wage laws asserting that the Defendants failed to pay them the appropriate minimum wage and overtime rates for their work and failed to pay them certain commissions they were due, among other claims. The Plaintiff Princesa Ortega was employed between March 2019 and November 2023, although she started as a student services representative in April 2019 (after first working at a restaurant at the school). Zoni operates language schools in New York, New Jersey and Florida, primarily for adults desiring to learn English as a second language. A copy of the Court's opinion dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RQ4Uur at no extra charge.[CC] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***