251029.mbx

251029.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, October 29, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 216 Headlines 2K GAMES: Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ABBOTT LAB: Legrand Seek to Seal Portions of Class Cert Bid ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Legrand Seeks OK of Renewed Class Cert Bid AC SCHULTES: Haughton Files Suit Over FLSA Violation ACE SOLID: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bailey Alleges AION MANAGEMENT: Faces Turnage Class Suit Over Disputed Fees ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Robertson Removed from State Ct. C.D. Cal. AMAZON.COM INC: Bernard Sues Over Improper Business Practices AMAZON.COM INC: Ebay Data Class Certification Sought APPLE INC: Martinez-Conde Balks at Illegal Use of copyrighted Works BAKER & TAYLOR: Edwards Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit Ove Improper Banking Practices BATH & BODY: Faces Richmond Suit Over Unfair Rewards Program BAYER BUILT: Website Not Fully Accessible to Blind Users, Suit Says BEELINE.COM LLC: Collect Website Visitor's Data, Sorensen Alleges BESTWAY USA: Pools Pose Drowning Hazard, Hill Alleges CAPITAL ONE: Plaintiffs Seek to Withdraw Bid for Class Cert. CLARO INSURANCE: Rashley Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid CLUB 180: Court Denies Second Injunction Bid in "Streblow" COINBASE INC: Seeks to Strike Class Allegations in Pearl Suit COMPU-FACT RESEARCH: Snow Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri COOKIES KIDS.COM: Hernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CSL PLASMA: Hull Suit Alleges Data Privacy Violations CUGINI PIZZERIA: Faces Velasquez Class Suit Over Proper Wages DISNEY DTC: Forst Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind DIVA FAM: Faces Trim Class Suit Over Pricing of Sea Moss Products DJGN LLC: Zimmerman Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages DRUNK ELEPHANT: Towns Balks at Blind User-Inaccessible Website ESUPPLEMENTS LLC: Moran Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website EXACT SCIENCES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Funkhouser Says FASHION NOVA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Arnold Suit Claims FEDEX CORP: Moran Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind FEDEX GROUND: Court Rejects Bids to Intervene in "Claiborne" FEDEX GROUND: Wins Partial Dismissal of Claims in "Claiborne" FENIX NAPLES: Faces Julien Suit Over Unlawful Tip Pool FLEET SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dixon Alleges FOSTER FARMS: Faces McWhite-York Suit Over Contaminated Corndogs FOUNDATION FOR CALIFORNIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Daniels Says GDV CORP: Solorzano Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages GMH NORTHERN: Sotiriou Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA GN BANK: Dotey Files Suit Over Abusive Fee Polices and Practices GOLDEN PLAZA: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Suit Says HAMILTON VPK: Benito Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA HARTE HANKS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Herrada Alleges HEALING HOME: Lopez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind HIGH 5: Faces Collins Suit Over Addictive Online Casino IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Weiler Sues Over Use of Illegal Data Trackers INSIGHT BEHAVIORAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Frindt Alleges INSURITY LLC: Heiting Sues Over Improper Data Collection L'OREAL USA: Towns Balks at Blind User-Inaccessible Website LENDEAVOR GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 13, 2026 LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Nov. 19, 2025 LVNV FUNDING: Shaw Seeks Leave to File Class Cert. Reply MAREX GROUP: Misreports Intercompany Transactions, Katz Says MAREX GROUP: Narayanan Sues Over Decline in Stock Price MCBS LLC: McCollum Files Suit in S.D. Georgia MDL 3035: Symetra Seeks More Time to File Response MEDSTAR HEALTH INC: Hoffman Files Suit in D. Maryland MELNOR INC: Douglass Seeks Final OK of Settlement Deal MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL: Kitchen Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Wadeea Files Suit in N.D. Ohio MERCK & CO: Benson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind MILLENNIUM DENTAL: Faces Fakhrzadeh Suit Over Dental Laser Warranty MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Roundup "Defective," Johnson Says NATURAL BODY: Faces Begic Suit Over Data Privacy Violations NEW DAY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anderson Suit Alleges NEW YORK, NY: Plaintiff Seeks to File Renewed Bid for Class Cert NEWPORT GROUP: Seeks More Time to File Class Response in Ewing NEWPORT GROUP: Seeks More Time to File Class Response in Jackson NEWPORT GROUP: Seeks More Time to File Class Response in Russ NEWPORT GROUP: Seeks More Time to File Class Response in Wade NEWREZ LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hastings Due April 6, 2026 NORTH CAROLINA: Plaintiffs Seek to File Class Cert Supplement ORLANDO HEALTH: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Response Deadline OSHKOSH CORP: Conspires to Fix Fire Trucks' Prices, Suit Says P & P TRANSPORTATION: Hernandez Sues Over Race Discrimination PACIFIC SEAFOOD: Olazabal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PARKE ENVIRONMENTAL: Macias Files Suit Over Labor Law Violations PENSKE LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alexander Says REGAL CINEMAS: Garza Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. SALESLOFT INC: Clay Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Gililland Sues Over Unlawful Advertising SANDISK LLC: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses SANDISK LLC: Plaintiffs Seek to File Docs Under Seal SCOTTS COMPANY: Calcagno Sues Over Fertilizer Products' False Ads SCOTTS COMPANY: Fertilizer Products Contain PFAS, Waldner Alleges SCOUT ENERGY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Dec. 15 SINGULARITY FUTURE: Settles Crivellaro Shareholder Suit SKINNY MIXES: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Reese Lawsuit SMK ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Jones Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SUTTER HEALTH: $4.3MM Class Settlement in Sargony Gets Initial Nod SYMETRA LIFE: Seeks More Time to File Response in Alexander SYMMETRY FINANCIAL: Bennett Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid TESOLIFE US: Wills Balks at Blind User-Inaccessible Website TICKETMASTER LLC: Holmes Suit Transferred to C.D. California TTI OUTDOOR POWER: Custer Sues Over Dangerous Defective Product UNITED CEREBRAL: Harris Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages US LBM: Royston Class Suit Removed to M.D. Pa. VILLAGES AT NOAH'S: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY: Parties Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. WALMART INC: Adam Sues Over Mislabeled Protein Shake WEBER-STEPHEN PRODUCTS: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website WILKES UNIVERSITY: Buller Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII WILKES UNIVERSITY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Grandinetti Says YEHUDA SHMIDMAN: Court OKs Settlement Distribution Plan in "D'Arcy" ********* 2K GAMES: Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------- 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, on Dec. 4, 2025, will move the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for an order certifying the following proposed class and subclasses under Rule 23(b)(3): Class: "All people in the United States who, from Nov. 17, 2019 to the present, had purchased virtual currency in an NBA 2K game account at the time the game's server was shut down and who were minors (under the age of 18) at the time." "Purchased virtual currency" means virtual currency purchased with real money through a first-party platform and is distinct from virtual currency that is earned. Conversion Subclass: "All class members who, from Nov. 17, 2020 to the present, had purchased virtual currency in an NBA 2K game account at the time the game's server was shut down and who resided in California, Nevada, New York, or Virginia at the time." California Subclass: "All class members who, from Nov. 17, 2019 to the present, had purchased virtual currency in an NBA 2K game account at the time the game's server was shut down and who resided in California at the time." The Plaintiff seeks the appointment of Plaintiff J.A., a minor, represented by his mother and next friend Andrea Deams, as class representative and Julie Erickson, Elizabeth Kramer, and Kevin Osborne of Erickson Kramer Osborne LLP as class counsel. 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=ZVI8bP 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 ABBOTT LAB: Legrand Seek to Seal Portions of Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONDALISA LEGRAND on behalf of herself, those similarly situated and the general public, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Case No. 3:22-cv-05815-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her administrative motion to seal portions of Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification. The Plaintiff previously filed an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Materials Should Be Sealed in connection with documents submitted in support of her Motion for Class Certification. Abbott responded in support of sealing its materials, and the Plaintiff filed a partial opposition. The Court granted in part and denied in part the seal motion, finding certain of Abbott’s materials filed with Plaintiff's initial class certification motion warranted sealing. Abbott is an American multinational healthcare company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wZtf49 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Melanie R. Monroe, Esq. Trevor M. Flynn, Esq. Allison Ferraro, Esq. FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 215-1741 E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com mmonroe@fmfpc.com tflynn@fmfpc.com aferraro@fmfpc.com - and - Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Paula Brown, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com pbrown@bholaw.com ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Legrand Seeks OK of Renewed Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONDALISA LEGRAND on behalf of herself, those similarly situated and the general public, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Case No. 3:22-cv-05815-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Nov. 20, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., will move the Court for an Order amending the Aug. 12, 2025 certification order and granting the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification. The Plaintiff alleges Abbott deceptively advertises Ensure as healthy and nutritious. This is the "take away" message consumers receive from Abbott's marketing efforts. Abbott engaged in a decades-long branding strategy that conveyed and reinforced this take-away message. The Plaintiff's proposed damages models of a full refund and conjoint analyses are based on well accepted methodologies, are consistent with Plaintiff’s theory of the liability, and satisfy Daubert. Abbott is an American multinational medical devices and health care company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nHAfO2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Melanie R. Monroe, Esq. Trevor M. Flynn, Esq. Allison Ferraro, Esq. FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 215-1741 E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com mmonroe@fmfpc.com tflynn@fmfpc.com aferraro@fmfpc.com - and - Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Paula Brown, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com pbrown@bholaw.com AC SCHULTES: Haughton Files Suit Over FLSA Violation ---------------------------------------------------- MARK ANTHONY HAUGHTON, all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B), Plaintiff v. A.C. SCHULTES OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida company, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-CV-24768 (S.D. Fla., October 16, 2025) is a collective action complaint against the Defendant for damages and other relief relating to Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The complaint relates that Plaintiff Houghton was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt employee in the position of well driller from February 26, 2018, through May 16, 2024. In addition, Schultes currently employs, and has employed, other similarly situated crane operators, engineers-in-training, well drillers, and pump installers, all of whom were classified as non-exempt employees. The complaint alleges that the Defendant's policy and practice is, and has been, to deprive its non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff, of their lawfully earned wages by failing to compensate them for time spent traveling from the designated workplace to a different job site during the Plaintiff's workday. As a result, Defendant has failed/refused to pay Plaintiff for all time worked, including but not limited to overtime hours, and has routinely failed/refused to properly compute Plaintiff's overtime rate of pay by neglecting to combine hours worked in more than one job classification for the same employer within the same workweek. The Defendant's payroll and compensation policies and practices with respect to its non-exempt employees are uniform. Due to Defendant's unlawful pay practices, Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees have suffered and continue to suffer a loss of wages and are therefore entitled to recover unpaid overtime wages for up to three years prior to the filing of their claims, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other compensation, says the suit. Plaintiff Haughton was an employee of Schultes engaged in construction and repair work. Schultes is engaged in deep water well construction work.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Monica Espino, Esq. ESPINO LAW 2250 SW 3rd Ave, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33129 Telephone: (305) 704-3172 Facsimile: (305) 722-7378 E-mail: me@espino-law.com ACE SOLID: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bailey Alleges ---------------------------------------------------- GERALD BAILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACE SOLID WASTE, INC., Case No. 0:25-cv-03935 (D. Minn., Oct. 14, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Bailey was employed by the Defendant as a garbage truck driver. Ace Solid Waste, Inc. is a solid waste management services company that provides waste collection, transfer, dumpster rental, and recycling services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michele R. Fisher NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 80 South 8th Street, Suite 4700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 Email: fisher@nka.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com AION MANAGEMENT: Faces Turnage Class Suit Over Disputed Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ GLORIA TURNAGE, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals v. AION MANAGEMENT LLC, and AP 11 NORTH LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00840 (E.D. Va., Oct. 10, 2025) is an action for actual, treble, and statutory damages, costs, and attorneys' fees for the Defendant's violations of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act and the Virginia Residential Landlord Tenant Act. The suit arises from AION Management's and AP 11's alleged fraudulent and unlawful conduct in imposing and collecting a $10-per-month "pest control reimbursement" and a $10-per-month "trash reimbursement" that the Defendants represents as necessary for each tenant to receive pest-control services and a sanitary premises and as simply reimbursing the actual costs to it of providing such services, but that are in fact a profit generator that do not cover the services Defendants claims to be covered and are not lawful under Virginia law in any event. Accordingly, the Defendants' conduct is part of an increasingly common practice by landlords and property management firms across the country to impose additional so-called "junk fees" on unsuspecting tenants that are supposed to be covered by the tenants' monthly rent. Landlords and property managers like Defendants here utilize these fees in lieu of advertising the true cost of renting from them so that they can advertise units at a lower sticker price, only to generate additional profits through backdoor fees after the prospective tenant has been lured in. To come up with reasons for these fees, landlords and property managers represent to tenants that the fees are merely to cover the costs of specific services, but in reality, they do not intend to in fact provide those services at the advertised cost and, worse, conceal from their tenants that they are already required to provide those services under state law, says the suit. AION advertises, solicits, or engages in consumer transactions -- namely, the leasing of apartments for personal, family, or household purposes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. Casey S. Nash, Esq. J. Patrick McNichol, Esq. Matthew G. Rosendahl, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com casey@kellyguzzo.com pat@kellyguzzo.com matt@kellyguzzo.com ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Robertson Removed from State Ct. C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- KEXIN TANG, an individual; RYAN JAMES ROBERTSON, an individual; and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 25STCV26286 (Filed Sept. 5, 2025) was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles to United States District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 10, 2025. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-09734 to the proceedings. The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action alleging causes of action for breach of contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and unfair competition in violation of California Business & Professions Code. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs, and each of the putative class members, had automobile coverage under policies issued by Defendants and that Defendants wrongfully deducted excessive costs from payments to Plaintiffs after a total loss of Plaintiffs' vehicle. The Defendants include ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY COMPANY; CENTURY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY; DIRECT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; ENCOMPASS INSURANCE COMPANY; ESURANCE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; FIRST COLONIAL INSURANCE COMPANY; INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY; INTEGON PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY; MIC GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION; NATIONAL FARMERS UNION PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY; NATIONAL GENERAL ASSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONAL GENERAL PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY; corporations; and DOES 1-50, inclusive.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Mark D. Campbell, Esq. Katherine Segarini-Jeffries, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 555 Mission St, Ste 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105-0925 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 E-mail: ksegarini@shb.com mdcampbell@shb.com AMAZON.COM INC: Bernard Sues Over Improper Business Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER M. BERNARD, individually and on behalf of LAST MILE NATIONAL CITY, LLC, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC.; AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC.; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02037 (W.D. Wash., Oct. 20, 2025) allege violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Sherman Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, through a carefully orchestrated pattern of deception, Amazon lures individuals to invest their life savings in what it portrays as an independent business opportunity -- promising they can "own your own business" with projected profits of $75,000 to $300,000 per year. In reality, Amazon exercises comprehensive control over virtually every aspect of the operation, systematically extracting value and preventing Delivery Service Partner ("DSP") owners from ever realizing a return on their investment, says the suit. Amazon.com, Inc. is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. The Company products include books, music, computers, electronics, and numerous other products. Amazon offers personalized shopping services, Web-based credit card payment, and direct shipping to customers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald G. Rossi, Esq. ROSSI & CO. PC 616 33rd Ave NW Gig Harbor, WA 988335 Telephone: (303) 222-0300 AMAZON.COM INC: Ebay Data Class Certification Sought ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties seek the Court for an Order Regarding Ebay Data Production Post Class Certification: The Plaintiffs and eBay stipulate and agree as follows: 1. Good cause exists for a limited extension of fact discovery to defer any dispute concerning whether, and to what extent, eBay has satisfied its production obligations under Request for Production No. 17 until 30 days after the Court issues its ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. 2. eBay will not assert any argument, before this or any court, that a motion to compel additional transaction-level sales data in response to Request for Production No. 17 filed by the Plaintiffs after the Court's ruling on class certification is untimely because it is filed after the close of fact discovery. 3. The Plaintiffs and eBay respectively reserve their rights under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 and all other rights and objections concerning the scope, burden, relevance, and/or proportionality of the Plaintiffs' discovery request to eBay concerning responsive transaction-level sales data. On April 14, 2023, the Plaintiffs served a subpoena on eBay, containing, among other requests, Request for Production No. 17 seeking historical transaction level sales data. eBay and Plaintiffs negotiated in good faith for several months about the scope of data that would be reasonable and proportional for eBay to produce in response to Request for Production No. 17, with each party preserving their respective positions. The Plaintiffs and eBay seek leave of Court to defer any dispute concerning whether, and to what extent, eBay has satisfied its production obligations under Request for Production No. 17 until 30 days after the Court issues its ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs sought Amazon's position regarding the relief requested in this stipulated motion and Amazon does not oppose. Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9OlKF8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Kelly Fan, Esq. Anne F. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com annej@hbsslaw.com kellyf@hbsslaw.com - and - Zina G. Bash, Esq. Jessica Beringer, Esq. Shane Kelly, Esq. Alex Dravillas, Esq. Roseann Romano, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500 Austin, TX, 78701 Telephone: (512) 690-0990 E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com ajd@kellerpostman.com roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com Counsel for Nonparty eBay, Inc.: Aaron Brecher, Esq. Robert L. Uriarte, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 401 Union Street, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 839-4332 E-mail: abrecher@orrick.com ruriarte@orrick.com APPLE INC: Martinez-Conde Balks at Illegal Use of copyrighted Works ------------------------------------------------------------------- SUSANA MARTINEZ-CONDE and STEPHEN L. MACKNIK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-08695 (N.D. Cal., October 9, 2025) alleges that the Defendant infringed upon Plaintiffs' and Class members' copyrights by reproducing their registered works without authorization as a part of amassing centralized databases of training materials and using that data to train its "Apple Intelligence" AI models on Plaintiffs' and Class members' copyrighted books and other works. According to the complaint, Apple has created a set of generative AI models collectively called Apple Intelligence that it provides to consumers in its phones, tablets and personal computers. It used Plaintiffs' and Class members' copyrighted works without their authorization, without compensating them to train and test their Apple Intelligence models, an impermissible use far beyond any applicable license Apple has to sell such books to the users of its product. Apple has illegally copied Plaintiffs copyrighted works to train its AI models, whose outputs compete with and dilute the market for those very works -- works without which Apple Intelligence would have far less commercial value. This conduct has damaged Plaintiffs’ and Class members' intellectual property. It deprived Plaintiffs and the Class of control over their work, undermined the economic value of their copyrighted works, and positioned Apple to achieve massive commercial success through unlawful means, says the suit. Apple Inc. is an electronics and media company that designs, manufactures, and sells software and hardware products, including iPhone products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1505 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com BAKER & TAYLOR: Edwards Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice ------------------------------------------------------------------ KELLY EDWARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAKER & TAYLOR, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00317-RWS (N.D. Ga., Oct. 15, 2025) alleges violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("Warn Act"), the Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendant up to 60 days wages and benefits, pursuant to the Warn Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide 60 days' notice prior to terminating 500 or more employees without cause in a mass layoff, or before terminating 50 or more employees in a plant closing. The Plaintiff and the Class that were terminated constituted mass layoffs and a plant closing without the 60 days' notice in direct violation of the Warn Act, says the suit. Baker & Taylor, LLC distributes hard copies and digital versions of books, videos, music, and games. The Company supplies library content, software and services through internet, traditional retailers, and institutional customers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph B. Alonso, Esq. Daniel H. Wirth, Esq. ALONSO & WIRTH 1708 Peachtree St., Ste. 303 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (678) 928-4509 Facsimile: (678) 490-3668 Email: jalonso@alonsowirth.com dwirth@alonsowirth.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit Ove Improper Banking Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 1:25-cv-08520 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 15, 2025) alleges violation of the Trafficking Victim Protection Act ("TVPA"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, Bank of America for years provided banking services in connection with Jeffrey Epstein, the world's most infamous sexual predator, and his sex-trafficking organization, as well as accounts for Epstein's co-conspirators, associates, and victims at Epstein's direction. The Defendant knowingly provided the financial support and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his co-conspirators to fuel their international sex-trafficking organization under the guise of non-criminal business activities. In exchange for that crucial financial support, Bank of America knowingly and intentionally benefited and received things of value from Epstein and his co-conspirators. Bank of America, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank offers saving and current account, housing and auto loans, online banking, mortgage, credit and debit cards, investment planning, and corporate finance services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Boies, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 55 Hudson Yards, 20th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 446-2300 Email: dboies@bsfllp.com - and - Sigrid McCawley, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 356-0011 Email: smccawley@bsfllp.com - and - Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. Brittany N. Henderson, Esq. EDWARDS HENDERSON 425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 524-2820 Email: brad@cvlf.com brittany@cvlf.com BATH & BODY: Faces Richmond Suit Over Unfair Rewards Program ------------------------------------------------------------ LATISHA RICHMOND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BATH & BODY WORKS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-at-01375 (E.D. Cal., October 9, 2025) asserts claims on behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated "My Bath & Body Works Rewards" Program members for Defendant's alleged violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Bath & Body Works operates the Program that provides rewards and perks to members. The members of this Program receive 10 Points for every U.S. Dollar they spend at Bath & Body Works. Once a customer becomes a member of the Program, that person does not have to pay for products with U.S. Dollars alone. Instead, members can redeem Points for Rewards, up to $18.95 value. These Points operate like seashells, doubloons, or any other medium of exchange that humans use to barter with each other. The Plaintiff and other consumers who purchased Points have been harmed by Defendant's failure to ensure that its Points comply with gift certificate law. The Plaintiff and class members have each purchased Points that expired. They did not receive a full refund of the purchase price for each expired Point, and they did not receive any goods or services in exchange for the expired Points, alleges the suit. Bath & Body Works, Inc. is an American retail store chain that sells soaps, lotions, fragrances, and candles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0710 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: sbogdanovich@bursor.com - and - Julian C. Diamond, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jdiamond@bursor.com BAYER BUILT: Website Not Fully Accessible to Blind Users, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Bayer Built Woodworks, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-03984 (D. Minn., October 16, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant concerning its website, www.bayerbuilt.com, which is not fully and equally accessible to individuals who are blind or have low vision, in violation of both the general non-discrimination mandate and the requirements for effective communication and auxiliary aids and services of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiffs also assert a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The complaint relates that the Defendant purposefully avails itself of the benefits and advantages of operating an interactive, online business open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year which, through its Website, enters into contracts for the sale of its products with residents of Minnesota and participates in the State of Minnesota's economy by offering and providing services over the internet and via its brick-and-mortar locations to Minnesota residents, including the Plaintiffs. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs were injured when they attempted to access Defendant's Website from Minnesota. As a consequence of Plaintiffs' experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on their behalf, Plaintiffs found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like the Plaintiffs, full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. The Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities. The Plaintiffs are legally blind and are residents of Minnesota. Defendant Bayer Built Woodworks, Inc. is a Minnesota Company that owns, operates, and controls its Website, offering interior and exterior home improvement products for sale including, but not limited to, doors, framing materials, moldings, stair systems, deck railings, custom services and more.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndselaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com BEELINE.COM LLC: Collect Website Visitor's Data, Sorensen Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW SORENSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BEELINE.COM LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-09751 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2025) Beeline uses data broker software on its website, https://www.beeline.com, to secretly collect data about a Website visitor's computer, location, and browsing habits. According to the complaint, the data broker software then compiles this data, and correlates it with extensive external records the data broker already has about most Californians, for the purpose of learning the identity of the Website visitor. The Defendant's installation and use of data broker software without obtaining consent is a violation of the California Trap and Trace Law. Beeline offers a cloud-based vendor management system that assists businesses in managing their non-employee workforce, including freelancers and contractors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com eshapiro@taulersmith.com BESTWAY USA: Pools Pose Drowning Hazard, Hill Alleges ----------------------------------------------------- KATRINA HILL; and LISA WEEKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BESTWAY (USA) INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08928-RMI (N.D. Cal., Oct. 17, 2025) is a class action involving hundreds of thousands of dangerously defective above-ground pools designed, manufactured and sold by Defendant Bestway (hereinafter the "Pools" or "Products"), which were subject to a delayed, deficient and defective Recall. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant's Pool Products were dangerously defective at the point of purchase, which was unknown to reasonable consumers, but known to Bestway. Bestway concedes through its deficient recall notice that the Pools pose a drowning hazard. Had the Plaintiffs, Class Members and the consuming public known that the Pools were defective, unsuitable for their marketed and intended use, and risk their children's lives, they would not have purchased them, says the suit. Bestway (USA), Inc. was founded in 2010. The company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of games, toys, hobby goods, and supplies. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Trenton R Kashima, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DeMAY PLLC 19800 MacArthur Blvd., STE 270 Irving, CA 92612 Telephone: (619) 810-7047 Email: tkashima@brysonpllc.com CAPITAL ONE: Plaintiffs Seek to Withdraw Bid for Class Cert. ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re: Capital One Financial Corporation, Affiliate Marketing Litigation, Case No. 1:25-cv-00023-AJT-WBP (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the motion to withdraw their motion for class certification and all associated filings, including the following: ECF Nos. 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 320, 328, 329, 334, 336, and 338. Capital is a diversified bank that offers a broad array of financial products and services to consumers, small businesses and commercial clients. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lMjLeN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven T. Webster, Esq. WEBSTER BOOK LLP 2300 Wilson Blvd., Suite 728 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (888) 987-9991 E-mail: swebster@websterbook.com - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net - and - Douglas J. McNamara, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1200 17th Street N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com CLARO INSURANCE: Rashley Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE BUTLER RASHLEY, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, v. CLARO INSURANCE, LLC, Case No. 9:25-cv-80492-MD (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting a 60-day extension of the class certification and affirmative expert disclosure deadlines to allow for resolution of third party Elevarus's motion for protective order. The Plaintiff requires discovery from Elevarus to move for class certification and otherwise prosecute the case on behalf of the proposed class. The Plaintiff has diligently sought this discovery, but has been thwarted by Elevarus's efforts to shield itself and its customer from potential liability for sending text messages to the Plaintiff and other consumers identifying Defendant Claro Insurance. The Defendant will not be prejudiced by the extension. The Plaintiff has not previously sought an extension of any deadline. On April 23, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act as a result of receiving unsolicited telemarketing text messages identifying Defendant Claro Insurance. Claro is an insurance company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qfKNP0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com rachel@kaufmanpa.com CLUB 180: Court Denies Second Injunction Bid in "Streblow" ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Chuck Streblow, Sarah Houston, Imagination Industries, Inc., Kimberly Hernandez, Jane Doe Dancers #1-25, Casey Rowe, John Doe Security Guards #1-7, John & Jane Doe Customers #1-100, and all Similarly Situated Residential & Commercial Neighbors of Club 180; and Justine Dubois, Plaintiffs, v. Club 180, AM314, LLC, Matthew Longcor, Ayden Longcor, Nicholas Scalise, Evron, Inc., Nancy Waggener, Paul Waggener, Bravo1 Security, Inc., Michael Elayan, Miroslava Kotsan, Stu Sleeper, David Ekdahl, James Pull, Blaike Koca, Marley Nygaard, Jalil Tookhi, Malik Harmon, Abdul Rahmanzai, David Looloo, Brooke Leibert, Elena Rhodd-Morales, Christina Craft, Toast, Inc., Eric Havermann, Ellie Jaeke, Roman, Echo, Amira, Jessie, Santana, John & Jane Roes #1-50, Jessica Richardson, Breauna Hoffman, Teaona Mason, Lanie Wilson, Patience Elizabeth, Brittney Dinovo, Kiara Morales, Skylar Dickey, Janae Balt, A. Jansen, Octavia, Sapphire, Winter, Mireya, Tiny, 7 Oaks Investment Corp., Chad, and Michael Alan Beene, Defendants, Civil Action No. 8:25CV241(D. Neb.), Senior United States District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska denied Plaintiffs' second motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants operate an unlawful all-nude BYOB strip club, Club 180, involved in numerous illicit and disruptive criminal activities. The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of Club 180, neighbors to the business, and a rival business all allegedly harmed by Club 180's activities. There is also a pending motion to file a second amended complaint which is opposed by some Defendants. The second amended complaint contains generally similar allegations with additional facts. The renumbered fourth cause of action is for civil RICO witness and attorney intimidation. It alleges Plaintiffs and their attorneys have received threats due to their involvement in the Club 180 case. The Court found that Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief must be denied. The Plaintiffs purport to seek the injunction on behalf of a Justine Dubois, whom the Plaintiffs' counsel refers to as both a key witness and a Jane Doe Plaintiff. However, the Court notes that Dubois is not a named Plaintiff in this case in either the operative amended complaint or the proposed second amended complaint. Rather, it appears Plaintiffs' counsel entered his appearance on Dubois's behalf as a plaintiff, without leave of the Court to amend the complaint in order to add her as a party. The Court noted that Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the title of the complaint must name all the parties. However, the Court has the discretion to allow a party to proceed anonymously in certain situations. Plaintiffs have not sought leave for Dubois to proceed anonymously in this Court and in fact name her in their publicly filed motion, undermining any purported need for her to remain anonymous. Thus, instead of Dubois being a Jane Doe plaintiff, it appears she is merely an unnamed individual who is not a party to this case. The fact Plaintiffs' counsel attempted to file the injunctive motion on Dubois's behalf and entered his appearance on her behalf does not transform her into a party to the action. Dubois, therefore lacks standing to seek the injunctive relief she purportedly seeks because she is not a party to this case. The Court further determined that even if it were to assume Dubois should be deemed a plaintiff, or if it construed the motion to be on behalf of the currently existing plaintiffs or those in proposed in the second amended complaint, it would still deny the motion for injunctive relief. Plaintiffs fail to show a likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiffs claim they are likely to prevail on their count of witness tampering, but their only argument in support of this claim is citing to 18 U.S.C. Section 1512, a criminal statute. They fail demonstrate how they are likely to meet the elements of any civil cause of action. As in their first motion for temporary restraining order, Plaintiffs complain about allegedly illegal conduct but admit that law enforcement has declined to pursue their complaints. The Court again emphasizes it has no authority to prosecute law violations in this civil case. Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction for lack of standing and because they have failed to meet their burden to demonstrate injunctive relief is warranted. A copy of the court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zZ0L5y from PacerMonitor.com COINBASE INC: Seeks to Strike Class Allegations in Pearl Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARRY PEARL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COINBASE, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-03561-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant, on Feb. 6, 2026 at 9:00 a.m., will move the Court for an order striking the class allegations from the Plaintiff's fourth amended class action complaint ("FAC") or otherwise denying class certification. The Plaintiff Larry Pearl's claims against Coinbase all fail as a matter of law for the reasons explained in Coinbase's motion to dismiss, filed earlier today. But, if any of his claims survive, this case cannot proceed as a class action because members of the proposed classes have agreed to arbitrate their claims against Coinbase and, like Plaintiff, also have agreed to a class action waiver. As a result, no class can be certified as a matter of law. The Court should strike the class allegations or otherwise deny class certification because each of the putative classes, as defined in the FAC, includes only individuals who have agreed to arbitrate their substantive claims against Coinbase and agreed to arbitrate the preliminary question of whether their claims are arbitrable in the first instance. Coinbase is an American publicly traded company that operates a cryptocurrency exchange platform. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0wXCSd at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Randall S. Luskey, Esq. Kristina A. Bunting, Esq. Paul D. Brachman, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 535 Mission Street, 24th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (628) 432-5100 Facsimile: (628) 232-3101 E-mail: rluskey@paulweiss.com kbunting@paulweiss.com pbrachman@paulweiss.com COMPU-FACT RESEARCH: Snow Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Tonya Snow, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Compu-Fact Research, Inc., Case No. 25BU-CC01316 was removed from the Circuit Court of County of Buchanan County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Oct. 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-06177-BP to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. CompUFACT -- https://compufact.com/ -- provides companies with quick and affordable background checks, drug screens, reference checks, and driving records on new or existing employees.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: James M Brodzik, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 701 Market St., Suite 260 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (618) 310-2325 Email: jbrodzik@hinshawlaw.com COOKIES KIDS.COM: Hernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. COOKIES KIDS.COM, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05712 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.cookieskids.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on January 31, 2025, to access Defendant's Website from Plaintiff's 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. The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC rsalim@steinsakslegal.com One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 CSL PLASMA: Hull Suit Alleges Data Privacy Violations ----------------------------------------------------- BRIANNA HULL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CSL PLASMA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01917 (S.D. Ill., Oct. 16, 2025) alleges violation of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant chose to disregard the GIPA and Illinois' genetic privacy laws by repeatedly asking job applicants and/or employees to provide genetic information, in the form of family medical history. The Defendant was or should have been aware of its obligations under GIPA. Nevertheless, the Defendant intentionally and recklessly captured, collected, and/or retained Plaintiff's genetic information in the form of her family medical history in violation of Illinois law. As a result, the Defendant's violations were willful because it knew, or reasonably should have known, that it was failing to comply with the above-described requirements of GIPA, alleges the suit. CSL Plasma Inc. operates as a collector of human blood plasma. The Company manufactures life-saving biotherapies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel N. Minder, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: rminder@sirillp.com CUGINI PIZZERIA: Faces Velasquez Class Suit Over Proper Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- LESTER ARGENIS ALMENDARES VELASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CUGINI PIZZERIA & RISTORANTE CORP. and DAKARI SUAREZ PENA and BRANDON SUAREZ PENA, as individuals, Case No. 2:25-cv-05717 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2025) seeks to recover damages for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law arising out of the Plaintiff's employment at Cugini Pizzeria & Ristorante Corp., located at 432 Jericho Tpke, Mineola, New York City. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff with an accurate wage statement that included all hours worked and all wages received each week when Plaintiff was paid in violation of the NYLL. Moreover, the Defendants are aware that they were not properly compensating Plaintiff and therefore willfully chose to continue to violate the NYLL by not paying the Plaintiff proper overtime wages. As a direct result of the Defendants' violations and failure to provide proper wage notices and wage statements, the 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. The Plaintiff was employed as a cook and food preparer while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants, from in or around July 2024 until in or around August 2025. CUGINI PIZZERIA & RISTORANTE CORP. engaged in restaurant business with principal place of business in 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 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 DISNEY DTC: Forst Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------- CLARENCE FORST; and TAMMY FROST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DISNEY DTC LLC d/b/a ESPN, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-03970 (D. Minn., Oct. 15, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.espn.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Disney DTC LLC d/b/a ESPN operates as an entertainment company. The Company offers media networks, news, parks, resorts, information, studio, and entertainment services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndselaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com DIVA FAM: Faces Trim Class Suit Over Pricing of Sea Moss Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- LUCY TRIM and KRISTINE DRINOVSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DIVA FAM, INC., d/b/a TRUE SEA MOSS, Case No. 2:25-cv-09756 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2025) is a putative class action lawsuit against the Defendant for engaging in illegal strikethrough pricing and "automatic renewal" schemes with respect to its products and services sold through its website at https://www.trueseamoss.com/. According to the complaint, the Defendant advertises fictitious sales prices and phantom discounts on products sold through its Website. This practice allows Defendant to fabricate fake "reference prices" for its products, and present the actual prices as "discounted," when they are not. The result is a sham price disparity that is per se illegal under California and Oregon laws. In addition, the Defendant also engages in illegal "automatic renewal" schemes with respect to its products and services through its Website. Relevant to Drinovsky's allegations, when Oregon consumers purchase a purportedly discounted product from the Website, they are unwittingly enrolled in an "Auto-Refill" program that results in automatic purchases of the product every 30 days and, correspondingly, monthly charges to the consumer's credit card, debit card, or third-party payment account. In doing so, the Defendant fails to provide the requisite disclosures and authorizations required to be made pursuant to Oregon consumers under Oregon's Automatic Renewal Law, in direct violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act. The market for supplements containing sea moss, such as Defendant's products at issue here, is one of the fastest growing vitamin and supplement markets in the world. The Defendant seeks to carve out its own share of this hypercompetitive market by offering perpetual "sales" and discounted prices through its Website. Indeed, the Defendant sells and markets sea moss supplement products online through the True Sea Moss brand and website, https://www.trueseamoss.com/. It sells its Products using fake sales, and has used fake sales for years. Consumers buy the Products believing that they are getting a discount -- when in fact they are not. The Defendant's unlawful approach at gaining market share through false sales pricing is historically effective. Advertised "sale" prices are important to consumers. Consumers are more likely to purchase an item if they know that they are getting a good deal. Further, if consumers think that a sale will end soon, they are likely to buy now, rather than wait, comparison shop, and buy something else, the suit alleges Plaintiff Trim purchased a 16 ounce Mango Sea Moss, a 16 ounce Blue Spirulina Sea Moss, and Strawberry Sea Moss jar from Defendant's Website from her home in Downey, California, on April 10, 2025. Diva Fam Inc. manufactures, markets, and advertises and distributes its Sea Moss Products throughout the United States, including California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Julia K. Venditti, Esq. Joshua B. Glatt, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com jvenditti@bursor.com jglatt@bursor.com DJGN LLC: Zimmerman Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON ZIMMERMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DJGN LLC, RICCI CULINARY HOLDING COMPANY LLC, RICCI CULINARY MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, and TONY RICCI, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00729-MRB (S.D. Ohio, October 9, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages owed to Plaintiff and all other similarly situated workers employed by Defendant, as well as liquidated and other non-wage damages, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio state laws. The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a server at their Tony's Steaks & Seafood restaurant in Cincinnati, Ohio from approximately July 2017 through May 2025. During his employment as a server, the Plaintiff received hourly wages from Defendants less than both the federal and Ohio minimum wage rates plus tips. By failing to pay servers all required minimum and overtime wages pursuant to their common pay practices and policies, the Defendants violated the federal and state labor laws, alleges the suit. DJGN LLC is an Ohio limited liability company doing business as Tony's Steaks & Seafood restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. Nicole A. Chanin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com nchanin@barrettjohnston.com - and - Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Nickole K. Iula, Esq. Anna R. Caplan, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com niula@barkanmeizlish.com acaplan@barkanmeizlish.com DRUNK ELEPHANT: Towns Balks at Blind User-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA TOWNS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. DRUNK ELEPHANT HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-08423 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2025) sues the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, www.drunkelephant.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accordingly, multiple accessibility audits conducted by the Plaintiff's counsel confirm persistent violations, including missing alternative text, unlabeled form fields, keyboard navigation traps, lack of ARIA roles, and absence of skip links or semantic landmarks. The Defendant's failure to remediate -- despite clear federal guidance and ample opportunity -- reflects a sustained and knowing disregard for the rights of individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff is deeply invested in maintaining her skincare regimen and relies on ingredient transparency due to a history of dermatological sensitivity. She specifically sought out Drunk Elephant because of its reputation for clean formulations, educational content, and affordability. The Plaintiff attempted to browse the Website to learn about product ingredients, build a personalized routine, and complete a purchase. However, unless Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers, Plaintiff will continue to be unable to independently navigate, browse, use, and complete a transaction. The Defendant's denial of equal access to its Website constitutes unlawful discrimination under the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to revise its corporate policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that its Website becomes and remains accessible to blind and visually impaired users. Drunk Elephant has operated as a public-facing digital platform since its launch, offering skincare products to a nationwide consumer base. Despite its commercial success and brand visibility, the Defendant has failed to implement WCAG-compliant features across its Website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: rschoenfeld@employeejustice.com ESUPPLEMENTS LLC: Moran Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ WASHINGTON MORAN, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. ESUPPLEMENTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08551 (S.D.N.Y., October 16, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://ketologic.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant's online interactive Website and retail store provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: keto-friendly meal replacement shakes, snacks, and supplements, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on October 6, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Grass-Fed Collagen 1lb from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff WASHINGTON MORAN is a blind and visually impaired individual residing in New York, New York. Defendant ESUPPLEMENTS, LLC operates the Ketologic interactive Website and online retail store across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212-228-9795 Facsimile: 212-982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal EXACT SCIENCES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Funkhouser Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN FUNKHOUSER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXACT SCIENCES CORP., and EPIC SYSTEMS CORP., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00831 (W.D. Wis., October 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information and protected health information. Between September 13, 2024, and May 9, 2025, hackers targeted and accessed Defendant Epic's email and network systems and stole Plaintiff’s and Class Members' sensitive, confidential private information stored therein, causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members. The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive data. This unencrypted, unredacted private information was compromised due to Defendants' negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its patients' sensitive data. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients of providers that contracted with Defendant Exact Sciences, which in turn used Defendant Epic for electronic medical records software. In order to receive treatment from their providers, Plaintiffs and Class Members were and are required to entrust Defendants with their sensitive, non-public private information. Exact Sciences conducts cancer screening tests, provides personalized cancer treatment. Epic provides electronic health record and patient management systems to its clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWTIZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com FASHION NOVA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Arnold Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ LAKIA ARNOLD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FASHION NOVA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-09849 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 14, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Fashion Nova, Inc. provides apparels and footwear. The Company offers dresses, matching sets, rompers, jeans, lingerie, tops, pants, leggings, skirts, sweaters, jackets, heels, boots, sneakers, graphic tees, joggers, shirts, polos, sunglasses, and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana J. Oliver, Esq. OLIVER LAW CENTER, INC. 8780 19th Street #559 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Telephone: (855) 384-3262 Facsimile: (888) 570-2021 Email: dana@danaoliverlaw.com FEDEX CORP: Moran Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON MORAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FEDEX CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08552 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.office.fedex.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. FedEx Corporation delivers packages and freight to multiple countries and territories through an integrated global network. [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 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal FEDEX GROUND: Court Rejects Bids to Intervene in "Claiborne" ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Horace Claiborne, Sonjia Monique Bowlin, Tyshawn Walker, Dezrae Kauhane, Willie Seals, Frederick Eppich, Jerome Schoolfield, Kristina Travis, Jeremy Winkels, Daniel Forrester, Mark David Griffeth, Douglas Russell, Kenneth Burton, Gerald Gensoli, and Thomas Deppiesse, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-01698-RJC (W.D. Pa.), Judge Robert J. Colville of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied three Motions to Intervene filed by Ryan Systems, Inc., TABE Trucking Inc., and Cauble Enterprises, Inc. According to the Complaint, the Named Plaintiffs worked as delivery drivers for FedEx through ISPs from approximately November 2015 through October 2018 and since approximately 2011. Both Plaintiffs alleged that they were eligible for overtime compensation under the FLSA but did not receive it. The Plaintiffs asserted that all of the delivery drivers who worked alongside them were required to work under various ISPs and that all of the delivery drivers to whom Plaintiffs spoke told them that they do not get paid overtime for their work. The Proposed Intervenors have each separately moved, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and 24(b), to intervene in this action in order to request that the Court strike the notices of consent of, and dismiss with prejudice, certain Opt-In Plaintiffs who, in the Proposed Intervenors' estimation, do not meet the definition of the putative class. In the relevant briefing, the Proposed Intervenors make substantively (and, in most instances, completely) identical arguments in support of their respective Motions to Intervene. Specifically, each of the Proposed Intervenors asserts, respectively, that it was the direct employer of certain Opt-Ins, and further asserts that such Opt-Ins did not drive a vehicle weighing 10,000 pounds or less during any workweek in which those Opt-Ins worked over 40 hours. The Proposed Intervenors argue that they have better access to relevant records pertaining to the Opt-Ins at issue than FedEx, and further argue that the Proposed Intervenors are, respectively, better suited to present a Motor Carrier Act exemption defense to the Court than FedEx. The Proposed Intervenors also assert that each Proposed Intervenor has a substantial interest in the instant matter because FedEx has threatened each Proposed Intervenor with a lawsuit for indemnity if the Proposed Intervenors did not move to intervene in this case. Plaintiffs oppose the Motions to Intervene, and FedEx does not oppose the Motions to Intervene. The Court noted that this is the second attempt to include Service Providers in this litigation, and FedEx's third time arguing that a decision in this case will directly impact Service Providers. The Court stated that essentially, FedEx and the Proposed Intervenors ask this Court to reconsider a determination that has twice been reached, first by Judge Dodge and then by the undersigned, in this matter as to Service Providers' potential interest, or more accurately lack thereof, in this litigation. The Court explained that a court has the power to revisit prior decisions of its own or of a coordinate court in any circumstance, although as a rule courts should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial decision was clearly erroneous and would make a manifest injustice. The Court stated that the Proposed Intervenors and FedEx fail to provide this Court a sufficient basis to revisit the Court's previous determinations with respect to Service Providers' lack of a sufficient interest in this litigation. The Court stated that it has twice determined that Service Providers do not have a direct stake in this litigation, and this Court will not casually rethink a decision that has already been reached on two separate occasions. The Court found that the Proposed Intervenors fail to set forth a sufficient interest in this litigation, or that this litigation poses a threat to any such interest. Turning to permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b), the Court found that, even if the Proposed Intervenors satisfied the requirements of Rule 24(b)(1)(B), the Motions to Intervene make clear that permitting intervention will result in undue delay of this action. The Court noted that Rule 24(b)(3) provides that in exercising its discretion, the court must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties' rights. The Court observed that each of the Proposed Intervenors asserts that it intends to file a motion to dismiss a very select few of the approximately 30,000 opt-in plaintiffs in this action. The Court stated that such motions will clearly delay the adjudication of this matter, which has been pending for more than three years and has already involved significant motion practice in the absence of Service Providers. The Court noted that the addition of three Service Providers, each of whom intends to file a motion to dismiss individual opt-ins and duplicative briefing respecting the issue of decertification, will serve to make this case more complicated, convoluted, and unwieldy, and will clearly result in undue delay in this action. In light of the same, the Court declined to exercise its discretion to permit intervention under Rule 24(b). For the reasons discussed above, the Court denied the Motions to Intervene. The Court found that Service Providers do not have a sufficient interest in the present action to warrant intervention as of right under Rule 24(a), and that permitting intervention would result in undue delay of this action. A copy of the court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SIG5W3 from PacerMonitor.com FEDEX GROUND: Wins Partial Dismissal of Claims in "Claiborne" ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Horace Claiborne, Sonjia Monique Bowlin, Tyshawn Walker, Willie Seals, Frederick Eppich, Jerome Schoolfield, Kristina Travis, Jeremy Winkels, Daniel Forrester, Mark David Griffeth, Douglas Russell, Kenneth Burton, Gerald Gensoli, and Thomas Deppiesse, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-01698-RJC (W.D. Pa.), Judge Robert J. Colville of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss certain state law claims from the First Amended Complaint. FedEx moved to dismiss seven of the state law claims. Respectively, these Counts assert claims for unpaid overtime compensation under the laws of Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania. FedEx asserts that each of these claims fails as a matter of law because the Named Plaintiffs asserting these claims are not entitled to overtime pay under the laws of their respective home states because the state statutes at issue expressly exempt Plaintiffs or FedEx from the state's overtime requirements. FedEx argues that, because the plain language of the state statutes at issue precludes Counts 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 12, amendment would be futile, and dismissal should be with prejudice. More specifically, FedEx argues that by their plain language, none of these states' overtime rules apply to any worker whom the Secretary of Transportation has the power to regulate under the Motor Carrier Act, and accurately quotes the wage laws of Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, and Minnesota as follows: Connecticut's overtime provisions shall not apply with respect to any driver or helper with respect to whom the Secretary of Transportation has power to establish maximum hours of service under the MCA. Illinois defines employee under its Minimum Wage Law so that it does not include any individual permitted to work for a motor carrier and with respect to whom the U.S. Secretary of Transportation has the power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service pursuant to the MCA. Maryland excludes from overtime requirements any employee for whom the United States Secretary of Transportation may set qualifications and maximum hours under the MCA. Minnesota law defines employee to exclude any individual in a position for which the United States Department of Transportation has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service pursuant to the MCA. FedEx further asserts that Plaintiffs cannot state a claim under either Hawaii or Michigan law (Counts 4 and 8) because neither state's overtime requirements apply to employees or employers covered by the FLSA. The Plaintiffs oppose the Motion to Dismiss, asserting that the Motion should be denied for two reasons: (1) the remedial wage statutes at issue should be construed broadly in favor of coverage, particularly at the pleading stage; and (2) Plaintiffs' state law claims are properly pled in the alternative to their FLSA claims. The Court rejected Plaintiffs' arguments. The Court found that FedEx is free and the Court is required to accept as true the factual allegations set forth in the Complaint in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. FedEx argues that, even if Plaintiff can come forward with evidence to support Plaintiffs' allegations that FedEx is a joint employer under the FLSA, Plaintiffs cannot succeed on their state law claims. The Court found that the issue of whether FedEx was an employer under the FLSA need not be resolved before the Court considers whether Plaintiffs have, as a matter of law, stated a claim under the laws of Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, and Minnesota. The Court explained that Plaintiffs provide no substantive argument as to how they could succeed on their state law claims against FedEx if they cannot prove that FedEx is an employer under the FLSA. The Third Circuit has explained that the Supreme Court has even gone so far as to acknowledge that the FLSA's definition of an employer is the broadest definition that has ever been included in any one act. The Court noted that there is no dispute that FedEx is a motor carrier. Accordingly, if Plaintiffs can prove that FedEx employed them, they would be employees of a motor carrier and subject to the DOT's regulatory authority. If Plaintiffs cannot prove that FedEx employed them under the broad definition provided by the FLSA, the Court does not perceive how Plaintiffs could establish that FedEx owes them overtime compensation under state wage statutes. The Court found that Plaintiffs have not, and could not, plead their claims under the laws of Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, and Minnesota in the alternative. Regarding the interpretation of state statutes, the Court noted that FedEx has pointed to case law where courts have interpreted certain of the state statutes at issue strictly and have held that the weight of the vehicles driven by a plaintiff is irrelevant under those statutes. Plaintiffs cite to no case law or other authority that would specifically support their position, and even acknowledge that the cases cited by FedEx may ultimately answer the question regarding the application of these state law exemptions if Plaintiffs are determined to be employees of FedEx under federal law. The Court found that Plaintiffs essentially offer no opposition to FedEx's arguments that these exemptions apply, and that the weights of the vehicles driven by Plaintiffs are irrelevant under the wage laws of Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, and Minnesota. Regarding Michigan law, Plaintiffs acknowledge that Michigan's Workforce Opportunity Wage Act exempts an employer that is subject to the FLSA. There is no dispute that FedEx could, potentially, be found to be an employer in this case that is subject to the FLSA. Plaintiffs again fail to offer any substantive argument as to how they could fail in establishing that FedEx was an employer under the FLSA, and somehow succeed in establishing that FedEx was an employer under Michigan law. The Court granted FedEx's Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiffs' claims under the laws of Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, and Michigan. The Court found that amendment of these claims would be futile, and, given the stage of this litigation, inequitable, especially where Plaintiffs were put on notice of FedEx's argument prior to the filing of the Complaint. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Counts 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9 of the Complaint with prejudice. Because Named Plaintiff Dezrae Kauhane, who brought a claim under Hawaii law, is no longer a party to this action, the Court declined to address the Motion to Dismiss to the extent that it asserts that Plaintiffs' claim under Hawaii law (Count 4) should be dismissed. Because the Court has granted summary judgment in FedEx's favor on the individual claims brought by Named Plaintiff Douglas Russell, who brought a claim under Pennsylvania law, the Court likewise declined to address the Motion to Dismiss to the extent that it asserts that Plaintiffs' claim under Pennsylvania law (Count 12) should be dismissed. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9kNFjT from PacerMonitor.com FENIX NAPLES: Faces Julien Suit Over Unlawful Tip Pool ------------------------------------------------------ ELISABETH JULIEN and KAYLA SABIN, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FENIX NAPLES, LLC d/b/a RODIZIO GRILL, and VALENTINO ARENAS, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00886 (M.D. Fla., October 7, 2025) is an action seeking to recover Plaintiff's unpaid minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Amendment as a result of Defendants' engagement in an unlawful tip pool. The complaint asserts that Plaintiffs and the other similarly situated employees are owed minimum wages for the time spent deep cleaning the restaurant and not in their tipped occupation. Plaintiff Julien was hired as a server in October 2017. She became a bartender in 2018 and a "supervisor" in 2019. Plaintiff Julien held this position until her separation from employment in May 2025. Plaintiff Sabin was also hired as a server in 2019. She remained employed in that role until May 27, 2025. Fenix Naples, LLC operates Brazilian Steakhouse restaurants, including one in Coconut Point Mall in Estero, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason L. Gunter, Esq. Conor P. Foley, Esq. Peter M. Jennings, Esq. GUNTERFIRM 2165 W. First St., #104 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Telephone: (239) 334-7017 E-mail: Jason@GunterFirm.com Conor@GunterFirm.com Peter@GunterFirm.com FLEET SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dixon Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY DIXON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLEET SOLUTIONS OF HUDSON LLC; and JOHN MINGOLELLI, Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-02817 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 15, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Dixon was employed by the Defendants as a vehicle detailer/transporter. Fleet Solutions of Hudson LLC is engaged in the business as general automotive repair. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. Troy E. Longman, II, Esq. LORIN | GRAY 16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100 Lutz, FL 33558 Telephone (727) 254-5255 Facsimile (727) 483-7942 Email: wolfgang@floringray.com tlongman@floringray.com FOSTER FARMS: Faces McWhite-York Suit Over Contaminated Corndogs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kamonica McWhite-York, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Foster Farms, LLC, Case No. 1:25-at-00934 (E.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to adequately design, manufacture, test, inspect, and monitor the production process of the recalled products, allowing contaminated food to enter the stream of commerce on a massive scale. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to warn consumers in a timely and adequate manner, instead allowing adulterated products to remain on shelves and in consumer homes for months before a recall was announced. The contaminated products were believed to have been produced between July 30, 2025, and Aug. 4, 2025. On Oct. 4, 2025, Foster Farms announced a recall of its Chicken and Turkey Corndogs on a stick after the discovery of wood within the batter. According to public news reports, the Defendant is recalling 3.8 Million pounds of their chicken/turkey corn dog products because of this contamination hazard. The Plaintiff and Class Members suffered economic loss because they paid for products that had no value, resulting in a total failure of consideration and loss of the benefit of the bargain. The Plaintiff is a purchaser of The Foster Farms Company's Corn Dogs. Foster Farms, LLC is a privately held American poultry company since 1939. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Bohren, Esq. YANNI LAW, APC 145 S Spring St; No. 850 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (619) 433-2803 Facsimile: (800) 867-6779 - and - Andre Belanger, Esq. Antonio A. Cifuentes Jr. , Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: Andre.Belanger@poulinwilley.com Tony.Cifuentes@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com FOUNDATION FOR CALIFORNIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Daniels Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHAR DANIELS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOUNDATION FOR CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-at-01399 (E.D. Cal., Oct. 15, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Daniels was employed by the Defendant as a call center agent. Foundation For California Community Colleges is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization with headquarters in Sacramento, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 1801 Century Park East, Suite 860 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com GDV CORP: Solorzano Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- OSCAR FLORES SOLORZANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GDV CORP., d/b/a CENTRE PIZZERIA, JOSEPH LAROCCA and MICHAEL LAROCCA, as individuals, Case No. 1:25-cv-05720 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2025) seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Accordingly, the Defendants were aware that they were not properly compensating Plaintiff and therefore willfully chose to continue to violate the NYLL by not paying Plaintiff proper overtime wages and spread of hours. As a direct result of the Defendants' violations and failure to provide proper wage notices, the Plaintiff suffered a concrete harm, resulting from Plaintiff's inability to identify the Plaintiff's employer to remedy his compensation problems, lack of knowledge about the rates of pay he was receiving and/or should have been 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. The Plaintiff also seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants at Centre Pizzeria, from March 2007 until August 2025. The Defendant operates Pizza Restaurant.[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 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 GMH NORTHERN: Sotiriou Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- FOTIOS SOTIRIOU, SURINDER PAL, THOMAS HATSIOS, and GRIGORIOS PAPACHRISTOU, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GMH NORTHERN CORP., GMH ROOSEVELT LLC and GEORGE M. HRISIKOPOULOS, Case No. 1:25-cv-05721 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a day. The Plaintiffs were employed as car wash and gas station attendants at the car wash/gas station located at 76-11 Northern Blvd, Jackson Heights, New York City. The Defendants own, operate, or control a car wash/gas station.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Clifford Tucker, Esq. SACCO & FILLAS, LLP 31-19 Newtown Ave. 7th Floor Astoria, NY 11102 Telephone: (718) 269-2243 E-mail: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com GN BANK: Dotey Files Suit Over Abusive Fee Polices and Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- VICKIE DOTEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GN BANK, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03270 (D. Colo., October 16, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for its abusive practice of repeatedly charging customers multiple fees on a single transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that GN charged her non-sufficient funds ("NSF") fees on transactions that were resubmitted by merchants for payment, without her request to reprocess those transactions. As a result, the Plaintiff brings this action challenging the Defendant's routine practices of: (a) assessing more than one NSF fee or overdraft fee ("OD Fee") on the same transaction; and (b) assessing an OD Fee on transactions that did not actually overdraw the customer's checking account. GN's customers have allegedly been harmed by these improper practices, resulting in millions of dollars unlawfully withdrawn from their accounts in violation of GN's clear contractual commitments. The Plaintiff seeks to end the Defendant's abusive and predatory practices and to compel the refund of all improper charges. She asserts a claim for breach of contract, including breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief. The Plaintiff is a customer of GN and is a Colorado citizen. GN is a bank with over $980 million in assets and is headquartered and with its principal place of business in Girard, Kansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sophia G. Gold 490 43rd Street, No. 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 sgold@kalielgold.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel Amanda J. Rosenberg 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 jkaliel@kalielpllc.com arosenberg@kalielgold.com GOLDEN PLAZA: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOLDEN PLAZA RETAIL 2018, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-24795-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 17, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' commercial property located at 7832-42 SW 24th Street Miami, Florida 33155, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA. Golden Plaza Retail 2018, LLC owns and operates commercial properties in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, Florida 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Primary E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary E-Mails: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com HAMILTON VPK: Benito Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- ANTONINO BENITO ANTONIO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HAMILTON VPK LLC (D/B/A TACO AZTECA/LOS PANCHITOS), RUBEN MESA and ABEL ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 1:25-cv-08404 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff Benito worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Benito appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Benito the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiff Benito to all other similarly situated employees, says the suit. Mr. Benito is a former employee of the Defendants. The Defendants own, operate, or control two Mexican taco carts, located at 3560 Broadway, New York City under the names "Taco Azteca" and "Los Panchitos" respectively.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 HARTE HANKS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Herrada Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- KAROL HERRADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARTE HANKS RESPONSE MANAGEMENT/AUSTIN, INC.; and HARTE HANKS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-13025-MJJ (D. Mass., Oct. 16, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Herrada was employed by the Defendants as a licensed healthcare team member. Harte Hanks Response Management/Austin, Inc. provides services including customer care, fulfillment, logistics, and customer experience services to a variety of industries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. Carbone, Esq. AREND|CARBONE, P.C 68 Main Street, Unit 1096 Leominster, MA 01453 Telephone: (978) 987-6163 Email: ncarbonelaw@gmail.com - and - David J. Steiner, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 34555 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 250 Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 Email: david@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com HEALING HOME: Lopez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ VICTOR LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALING HOME FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08641 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://healinghomefoods.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Healing Home Foods, Inc. is an online retailer and provider of vegan granolas, crackers, chips, nuts, sweet treats, and other assorted snacks. [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 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal HIGH 5: Faces Collins Suit Over Addictive Online Casino ------------------------------------------------------- KENNILLE COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIGH 5 ENTERTAINMENT, LLC d/b/a HIGH 5 CASINO, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12766 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 20, 2025) is an action arising out of the Defendant's operation of an illegal online casino in violation of Illinois law. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, to evade regulatory scrutiny and mislead consumers, High 5 markets itself as a "social casino." This designation is purely cosmetic, designed to create the false impression that the platform provides benign, entertainment-only gameplay, when in reality it facilitates and profits from illegal gambling. The complaint added that under Illinois law, gambling is strictly regulated. The state's regulatory framework mandates that such games may only be offered by licensed operators at approved physical locations. High 5's operations flout these legal requirements by providing unlicensed gambling services to Illinois residents via the internet, says the suit. High 5 Entertainment, LLC d/b/a High 5 Casino is a game developer, specializing in creating innovative slot games for both online and land-based casinos. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Gabriel Mandler, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com gabriel@edelsberglaw.com - and - Andrew Shamis, Esq. Edwin Elliott, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com edwine@shamisgentile.com IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Weiler Sues Over Use of Illegal Data Trackers ----------------------------------------------------------------- ERIN WEILER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IKEA NORTH AMERICA SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-09659 (C.D. Cal., October 9, 2025) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant owns and operates the website ikea.com/us. When users visit IKEA's website, the Defendant causes at least two trackers -- the Meta Pixel and TikTok Pixel -- to be installed on Website visitors' Internet browsers. These invisible trackers secretly collect a vast array of data about website visitors in a process referred to in the industry as "fingerprinting." By installing and using the Trackers without Plaintiff's prior consent and without a court order, IKEA violates CIPA, says the suit. The Plaintiff has visited the IKEA website numerous times over the last several years, including most recently on December 15 and 17, 2024; and on May 2, 28, and 30, 2025. IKEA North America Services, LLC, is a Delaware corporation with its U.S. headquarters and principal place of business in Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 166 Geary Street, Ste. 1500-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7000 E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Ste. 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com INSIGHT BEHAVIORAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Frindt Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JASON FRINDT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LINDSEY FASCIONE, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Jeremy Meduri; INSIGHT BEHAVIORAL CONSULTING, LLC; and INSIGHT PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02226 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 17, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Frindt was employed by the Defendants as a chief technology officer. Insight Behavioral Consulting, LLC provides in-school and after-school services for children and adolescents with behavioral barriers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq. TITTLE & PERLMUTER 4106 Bridge Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 222-2222 Facsimile: (888) 604-9299 Email: scott@tittlelawfirm.com INSURITY LLC: Heiting Sues Over Improper Data Collection -------------------------------------------------------- JANE HEITING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSURITY LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-09990 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 17, 2025) alleges violation of the California Trap and Trace Law. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants use data broker software on its website -- https://insurity.com/ (the "Website") -- to secretly collect data about a Website visitor's computer, location, and browsing habits. The data broker software then compiles this data and correlates that data with extensive external records it already has about most Californians in order to learn the identity of the Website user. The Defendant's installation and use of data broker software without obtaining consent is a violation of the California Trap and Trace Law, alleges the suit. Insurity LLC provides technology solutions for insurance services. The Company offers policy and claims solutions, integrated suites, digital enablement. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 Email: rtauler@taulersmith.com eshapiro@taulersmith.com L'OREAL USA: Towns Balks at Blind User-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA TOWNS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. L'OREAL USA INC., d/b/a YOUTH TO THE PEOPLE; d/b/a CERAVE, Case No. 1:25-cv-08423 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2025) sues the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their websites, www.youthtothepeople.com and www.cerave.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, multiple accessibility audits conducted by the Plaintiff's counsel confirm persistent violations, including missing alternative text, unlabeled form fields, keyboard navigation traps, lack of ARIA roles, and absence of skip links or semantic landmarks. The Defendant's failure to remediate -- despite clear federal guidance and ample opportunity -- reflects a sustained and knowing disregard for the rights of individuals with disabilities, says the suit. The Plaintiff attempted to browse the Website to learn about product ingredients, build a personalized routine, and complete a purchase. However, unless Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers, the Plaintiff will continue to be unable to independently navigate, browse, use, and complete a transaction. The Defendant's denial of equal access to its Website constitutes unlawful discrimination under the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to revise its corporate policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that its Website becomes and remains accessible to blind and visually impaired users. The Defendant owns and operates the brands Youth To The People and CeraVe, both of which maintain interactive websites—www.youthtothepeople.com and www.cerave.com—offering nationwide access to skincare products, ingredient education, subscription services, and personalized product recommendations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: rschoenfeld@employeejustice.com LENDEAVOR GROUP: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 13, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA CARDENAS, v. LENDEAVOR GROUP LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05817-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna Schofield entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order: -- Initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) shall be completed not later than Oct. 12, 2025. -- The Plaintiff's deadline to serve expert report(s) and disclosures directed to class certification shall be Feb. 13, 2026. Lendeavor's deadline to serve expert reports(s) and disclosures directed to class certification shall be March 13, 2026. The deadline to complete expert discovery directed to class certification (inclusive of expert depositions) shall be March 30, 2026. -- Initial requests for production of documents pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. shall be served no later than Nov. 14, 2025. -- On April 21, 2026, a pre-motion conference will be held for any class certification motions. -- A party wishing to file a class certification motion shall file a pre-motion letter by April 8, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6WKvKP at no extra charge.[CC] LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Nov. 19, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PASSION GABOUREL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA INC. d/b/a LENSCRAFTERS, an Ohio corporation; LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA, INC., a business entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-00471-FWS-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Nov. 13, 2025, will move the Court for an order modifying the Scheduling Order to allow the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification excluding individuals who are subject to an arbitration agreement and extending all other deadlines approximately 120 days, as follows: New Date Deadline to file motion for class Nov. 19, 2025 certification ("MFCC"): The Defendant's opposition to MFCC due: Nov. 26, 2025 The Plaintiff's reply in support of MFCC Dec. 4, 2025 due: Hearing on MFCC: Dec. 18, 2025 Non-expert discovery cut-off: Jan. 16, 2026 Last day to hear motions: March 13, 2026 In the alternative, the Plaintiff moves this Court for an order extending all deadlines, other than deadlines related to Plaintiff’s motion for class certification, approximately 120 days to allow the Plaintiff to conduct merits discovery on the Plaintiff's non-certified claims. The Defendant has not identified any prejudice that would result from the requested amendment of the Scheduling Order. To the extent that Defendant argues that it will be prejudiced by delay, any delay will be brief and will not result in any significant prejudice. On the other hand, the Plaintiff and the putative class members will suffer irreparable harm if the requested relief is not granted. The Plaintiff filed this putative wage and hour class action on Nov. 23, 2021. On Jan. 22, 2022, the Defendant removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act. Luxottica offers prescription glasses and sunglasses. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AT0G4E at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Launa Adolph, Esq. Kayvon Sabourian, Esq. MATTERN LAW GROUP, PC 2101 E. El Segundo Blvd., Suite 403 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 431-1900 E-mail: KSabourian@maternlawgroup.com LVNV FUNDING: Shaw Seeks Leave to File Class Cert. Reply -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETSY SHAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LVNV FUNDING LLC, a foreign limited liability co., and LLOYD & MCDANIEL, PLLC d/b/a LLOYD & MCDANIEL, PLC, a foreign limited liability co., Case No. 4:24-cv-00205-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion for leave to file reply in support of renewed motion for class certification The Plaintiff filed her Renewed Motion for Class Certification on September 25, 2025. On Oct. 10, 2025, the Defendants filed their opposition to the Renewed Certification Motion, raising a litany of arguments not addressed in Plaintiff’s initial motion. The Defendants' brief contests substantially all of the Rule 23 factors and standing, raising many of the arguments leveled in its prior opposition brief, in addition to new and expanded arguments against the Renewed Certification Motion. LVNV is a third-party debt collection agency. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W8l52d at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC 2277 Lee Road, Suite B Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (321) 447-6461 E-mail: joshua@jacobsonphillips.com MAREX GROUP: Misreports Intercompany Transactions, Katz Says ------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAELLA G. KATZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAREX GROUP PLC, IAN THEO LOWITT, and CRISPIN ROBERT JOHN IRVIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08368 (S.D.N.Y., October 9, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that sold short Marex securities between August 14, 2024 and August 5, 2025, inclusive, against Marex and certain of its officers and executives, seeking to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Defendant Marex operates five reporting segments: (1) Clearing; (2) Agency and Execution; (3) Market Making; (4) Hedging and Investment Solutions; and (5) Corporate. Marex's Market Making segment provides direct liquidity to its client across a variety of products traded in the energy, metals, agriculture, and securities markets. Unbeknownst to investors, Marex failed to inform investors that it improperly inflated its cash flow and the revenues, assets, and profits of its Market Making segment through off-book intercompany transactions. Marex's use of intercompany transactions has grown in lockstep with the addition of new subsidiaries. Relying upon this increasingly complex web of potential counterparties, Marex has often failed to properly account for the cashflow in the intercompany transactions -- improperly recognizing revenue between its entities and failing to book corresponding receivables and payables, alleges the suit. As a result of the wrong acts and omissions by Marex, Chief Executive Officer Ian Theo Lowitt, and Chief Financial Officer Crispin Robert John Irvin, the Plaintiff and other class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Marex is a U.K.-based diversified global financial services platform. The Company maintains substantial operations in the United States, including its principal U.S. corporate offices, which are located in New York, New York and Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq. Matthew A. Peller, Esq. Mandeep S. Minhas, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com mpeller@scott-scott.com mminhas@scott-scott.com - and - Michael E. Criden, Esq. CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A. 2020 Salzedo Street, Suite 302 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 375-9000 MAREX GROUP: Narayanan Sues Over Decline in Stock Price ------------------------------------------------------- RAVISHANKER NARAYANAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAREX GROUP PLC, IAN LOWITT, and ROBERT IRVIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08393 (S.D.N.Y., October 9, 2025) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Marex securities between May 16, 2024 and August 5, 2025, inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company sold over-the-counter financial instruments to itself; (2) Marex had inconsistencies in its financial statements between its subsidiaries and related parties, including as to intercompany receivables and loans; (3) as a result of the foregoing, Marex's financial statements could not be relied upon; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Marex Group PLC is a global financial services firm which provides liquidity, market access, and infrastructure services to clients in the energy, commodities, and financial markets in the United Kingdom, the United States, and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Dawson, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (213) 521-8007 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: rdawson@glancylaw.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010 Atlanta, GA 30346 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 Facsimile: (770) 392-0029 MCBS LLC: McCollum Files Suit in S.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MCBS, LLC. The case is styled as Kelly McCollum, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MCBS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00240-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga., Oct. 14, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Medical Computer Business Services (MCBS) -- https://www.mcbs.com/ -- offers a full-range of services to streamline your medical practice.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 26 Grand Georgian Ct Cartersville, GA 30121 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com MDL 3035: Symetra Seeks More Time to File Response -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: AME Church Employee Retirement Fund Litigation (MDL 3035), Case No. 1:22-md-03035 (W.D. Tenn.), Symetra Life Insurance Company asks the Court to enter an order granting the motion and extending the deadline for Symetra to file its response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification through and including Nov. 3, 2025. The extension will provide sufficient time for Symetra to prepare its opposition in light of other briefing obligations in this matter, including responses to summary judgment motions and the Plaintiffs' motion in limine, as well as significant deadlines in other matters. The requested extension is reasonable; this motion is filed in good faith and not for any purpose of delay or any other unjust purpose; Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion; and no party will be prejudiced by the extension requested in this motion. On May 7, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. On August 27, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion without prejudice. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6Ew1SQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Markham R. Leventhal, Esq. Benjamin M. Stoll, Esq. Scott M. Abeles, Esq. Rachel A. Oostendorp, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. 1625 Eye Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 965-8189 E-mail: mleventhal@carltonfields.com bstoll@carltonfields.com sabeles@carltonfields.com roostendorp@carltonfields.com MEDSTAR HEALTH INC: Hoffman Files Suit in D. Maryland ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MedStar Health Inc. The case is styled as Monica Hoffman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MedStar Health Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-03396 (D. Md., Oct. 14, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. MedStar Health -- https://www.medstarhealth.org/ -- is a not-for-profit healthcare organization. It operates more than 120 entities, including ten hospitals in the Baltimore–Washington metropolitan area of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Edmund Howerton, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 223 Duke of Gloucester Street Annapolis, MD 21401 Phone: (410) 269-6620 Fax: (410) 269-1235 Email: zhowerton@milberg.com MELNOR INC: Douglass Seeks Final OK of Settlement Deal ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLAIR DOUGLASS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MELNOR INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00670-WSH (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting final approval of the parties' class action settlement agreement. The Plaintiff requests that the Court approve the Agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate and enter the Final Approval Order in the form accompanying this motion. The Defendant does not oppose the relief this motion seeks. Melnor designs and markets watering tools for the home gardener. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PKxDkC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Tucker, Esq. Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq. Chandler Steiger, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. Kayla Conahan, Esq. Jessica Liu, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 503 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 877-5220 E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com kconahan@eastendtrialgroup.com jliu@eastendtrialgroup.com MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL: Kitchen Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC. The case is styled as William Kitchen, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-03838-GMS (D. Ariz., Oct. 15, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Mercedes-Benz Financial Services -- https://www.mbusa.com/en/financial-services -- provides finance, lease, and insurance services, including payment terms, protection products, and maintenance/warranty plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Lee Davidson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 826-5477 Fax: (561) 961-5684 Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Wadeea Files Suit in N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Mahshid Wadeea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 1:25-mc-00045-JPC (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 14, 2025). Mercedes-Benz -- https://www.mbusa.com/en/home -- combines luxury with performance across the full line of models including luxury sedans, SUVs, coupes, roadsters, convertibles & more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Wagoner, Esq. DITTMER, WAGONER & STEELE 107 West Johnstown Road Gahanna, OH 43230 Phone: (614) 471-8181 Fax: (614) 540-7473 Email: bob@dwslaw.com MERCK & CO: Benson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY BENSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCK & CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08654 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.merck.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Merck & Co., Inc. is a global health care company that delivers health solutions through its prescription medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal health, and consumer care products, which it markets directly and through its joint ventures. The Company has operations in pharmaceutical, animal health, and consumer care. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com MILLENNIUM DENTAL: Faces Fakhrzadeh Suit Over Dental Laser Warranty ------------------------------------------------------------------- AMIR FAKHRZADEH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MILLENNIUM DENTAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; ROBERT HAROLD GREGG II II; DAWN GREGG; ANTHONY CANNON; BRIAN ALEXANDER; AUDREY QUINONEZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-09896 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 16, 2025) is an action arising from the fraudulent sale of the PerioLase MVP-7 ("Periolase"), a dental laser regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, to dentists around the country in and around 2020 and 2021 by the Defendant. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's Periolase unit, which he purchased in April of 2021, was manufactured in 2012, had been repaired twice, and had been the subject of a prior customer complaint, none of which was ever revealed to the Plaintiff by the Defendants or its officers, employees, or agents. To the contrary, the Defendants lulled the Plaintiff into a false sense of security with repeated statements that he would receive or had received a new Periolase unit. What's more, to conceal their fraudulent scheme, the Defendants intentionally altered the usual format of serial-number stickers that defendants placed on Periolase units such that manufacturing dates were omitted. Plaintiff and other dentists in the proposed class were therefore unable to detect defendants' fraud until recently, alleges the suit. Millennium Dental Technologies, Inc. provides dental care services. The Company offers gum disease and dental implant solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Alejandro Barrientos, Esq. BARRIENTOS PC 145 S. Fairfax Avenue, Suite 200-152 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Telephone: (626) 551-4564 Facsimile: (626) 427-6753 MONSANTO COMPANY: Herbicide Roundup "Defective," Johnson Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY JOHNSON, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01880-MCR-HTC (N.D. Fla., October 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant seeking injuries after Plaintiff sustained by exposure to Roundup(R) containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyoxyethylene tallow amine. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup, which refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup herbicide products, and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacks proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Defendant's failure to adequately warn Plaintiff resulted in (a) Plaintiff using and being exposed to glyphosate instead of using another acceptable and safe method of controlling unwanted weeds and pests; and (b) the scientific and medical communities failing to warn and instruct consumers about the risk of cancer, including NHL, and other injuries associated with Roundup, says the suit. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup(R), the Plaintiff developed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, which is a subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Monsanto was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation, known for developing the herbicide Roundup and genetically modified seeds. It was acquired by Bayer in 2018.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Valerie S. Farwell, Esq. HENDLER FLORES LAW, PLLC 901 S. MoPac Expressway Bldg. 1, Suite #300 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 439-3200 Facsimile: (512) 439-3201 E-mail: vfarwell@hendlerlaw.com NATURAL BODY: Faces Begic Suit Over Data Privacy Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- SEJLA BEGIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATURAL BODY INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06007-SDG (N.D. Ga., Oct. 20, 2025) alleges violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is engaged in an unlawful practice of disclosing the Plaintiff's and the Class members' individually identifiable health information and protected health information to unauthorized third parties, including Google LLC and Facebook. The Plaintiff and Class members have suffered injury as a result of the Defendant's conduct. Natural Body International, Inc. offers medical treatments, including Botox, hair transplant, and microneedling. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle G.A. Wallace, Esq. SHIVER HAMILTON CAMPBELL LLC 3490 Piedmont Road, Suite 640 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 593-0020 Facsimile: (888) 501-9536 Email: kwallace@shiverhamilton.com NEW DAY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anderson Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- VERGES ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW DAY PERSONAL CARE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-01533 (W.D. La., Oct. 14, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Anderson was employed by the Defendant as a healthcare worker. New Day Personal Care Services, Inc. offers non-medical home care, including long-term personal care, for those with disabilities, and those needing help with health challenges. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET LAW PC 2 Greenway, Ste. 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 999-5200 Email: matt@parmet.law - and - KENNETH ST. PE ST. PE LAW 700 St. John St., Ste. 401 Lafayette, LA 70501 Telephone: (337) 534-4043 Telecopier: (337) 534-8379 Email: kds@stpelaw.com NEW YORK, NY: Plaintiff Seeks to File Renewed Bid for Class Cert ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leslie et al., v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-02305-NRB (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting request for a pre-motion conference to discuss renewed motion for class certification or, in lieu of a conference, a briefing schedule for the motion. The Plaintiff seeks to file her renewed motion for class certification because the Galvan doctrine does not apply to this case and, even if it did, the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA has implicitly overruled Galvan. First, Galvan is inapposite because plaintiff here, unlike the plaintiffs in Galvan, seeks affirmative relief. The Second Circuit in Galvan affirmed the district court’s denial of class certification because it found class action status to be unnecessary in an action merely seeking "prohibitory" relief. But here, plaintiff seeks both prohibitory relief and the affirmative relief that the City “expunge all suspect profiles in the City's Suspect Index that were created and maintained as a result of [its] unconstitutional and unlawful practices.” New York comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L9Nuub at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip Desgranges, Esq. THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY 49 Thomas Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 577-3367 E-mail: pdesgranges@legal-aid.org NEWPORT GROUP: Seeks More Time to File Class Response in Ewing -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ewing v. Newport Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02136 (W.D. Tenn.), Symetra Life Insurance Company asks the Court to enter an order granting the motion and extending the deadline for Symetra to file its response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification through and including Nov. 3, 2025. The extension will provide sufficient time for Symetra to prepare its opposition in light of other briefing obligations in this matter, including responses to summary judgment motions and the Plaintiffs' motion in limine, as well as significant deadlines in other matters. The requested extension is reasonable; this motion is filed in good faith and not for any purpose of delay or any other unjust purpose; Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion; and no party will be prejudiced by the extension requested in this motion. On May 7, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. On August 27, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion without prejudice. Newport operates as retirement services firm. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rJEIYI at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Markham R. Leventhal, Esq. Benjamin M. Stoll, Esq. Scott M. Abeles, Esq. Rachel A. Oostendorp, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. 1625 Eye Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 965-8189 E-mail: mleventhal@carltonfields.com bstoll@carltonfields.com sabeles@carltonfields.com roostendorp@carltonfields.com NEWPORT GROUP: Seeks More Time to File Class Response in Jackson ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jackson v. Newport Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02174 (W.D. Tenn.), Symetra Life Insurance Company asks the Court to enter an order granting the motion and extending the deadline for Symetra to file its response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification through and including Nov. 3, 2025. The extension will provide sufficient time for Symetra to prepare its opposition in light of other briefing obligations in this matter, including responses to summary judgment motions and the Plaintiffs' motion in limine, as well as significant deadlines in other matters. The requested extension is reasonable; this motion is filed in good faith and not for any purpose of delay or any other unjust purpose; Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion; and no party will be prejudiced by the extension requested in this motion. On May 7, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. On August 27, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion without prejudice. Newport operates as retirement services firm. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kxvrGW at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Markham R. Leventhal, Esq. Benjamin M. Stoll, Esq. Scott M. Abeles, Esq. Rachel A. Oostendorp, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. 1625 Eye Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 965-8189 E-mail: mleventhal@carltonfields.com bstoll@carltonfields.com sabeles@carltonfields.com roostendorp@carltonfields.com NEWPORT GROUP: Seeks More Time to File Class Response in Russ ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Russ et al v. Newport Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01129-STA-jay (W.D. Tenn.), Symetra Life Insurance Company asks the Court to enter an order granting the motion and extending the deadline for Symetra to file its response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification through and including Nov. 3, 2025. The extension will provide sufficient time for Symetra to prepare its opposition in light of other briefing obligations in this matter, including responses to summary judgment motions and the Plaintiffs' motion in limine, as well as significant deadlines in other matters. The requested extension is reasonable; this motion is filed in good faith and not for any purpose of delay or any other unjust purpose; Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion; and no party will be prejudiced by the extension requested in this motion. On May 7, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. On August 27, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion without prejudice. Newport operates as retirement services firm. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DsEXge at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Markham R. Leventhal, Esq. Benjamin M. Stoll, Esq. Scott M. Abeles, Esq. Rachel A. Oostendorp, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. 1625 Eye Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 965-8189 E-mail: mleventhal@carltonfields.com bstoll@carltonfields.com sabeles@carltonfields.com roostendorp@carltonfields.com NEWPORT GROUP: Seeks More Time to File Class Response in Wade ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wade, et al v. Newport Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01126 (W.D. Tenn.), Symetra Life Insurance Company asks the Court to enter an order granting the motion and extending the deadline for Symetra to file its response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification through and including Nov. 3, 2025. The extension will provide sufficient time for Symetra to prepare its opposition in light of other briefing obligations in this matter, including responses to summary judgment motions and the Plaintiffs' motion in limine, as well as significant deadlines in other matters. The requested extension is reasonable; this motion is filed in good faith and not for any purpose of delay or any other unjust purpose; Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion; and no party will be prejudiced by the extension requested in this motion. On May 7, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. On August 27, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion without prejudice. Newport operates as retirement services firm. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uUaB90 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Markham R. Leventhal, Esq. Benjamin M. Stoll, Esq. Scott M. Abeles, Esq. Rachel A. Oostendorp, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. 1625 Eye Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 965-8189 E-mail: mleventhal@carltonfields.com bstoll@carltonfields.com sabeles@carltonfields.com roostendorp@carltonfields.com NEWREZ LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Hastings Due April 6, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYAN HASTINGS, v. NEWREZ LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00789-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge James L. Robart entered a Rule 16(B) and Rule 23(D)(2) Scheduling Order Regarding Class Certification Motion: Deadline to complete discovery on class March 6, 2026 certification (not to be construed as a bifurcation of discovery): Deadline for the Plaintiff's to file motion April 6, 2026 for class certification (to be noted for the reply brief deadline): The Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's May 11, 2026 motion for class certification: The Plaintiff's reply: May 29, 2026 NewRez provides financial services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IuXDt7 at no extra charge.[CC] NORTH CAROLINA: Plaintiffs Seek to File Class Cert Supplement ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE 1, et al., v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00017-CCE-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to supplement the record on motion for class certification. On Sept. 26, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, supporting memorandum of law, and supporting evidence available to them at that time. On Oct. 1, 2025, the Court held a hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendant is an umbrella agency that carries out many of the state's law enforcement, emergency response and homeland security functions. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1AOFQU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert L. Lindholm, Esq. Donna O. Tillis, Esq. Soren K. Young, Esq. Yasmeen Ebbini, Esq. Axton D. Crolley, Esq. Matthew G. Lindenbaum, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 301 South College Street, 23rd Floor Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 417-3000 E-mail: robert.lindholm@nelsonmullins.com donna.tillis@nelsonmullins.com soren.young@nelsonmullins.com yasmeen.ebbini@nelsonmullins.com axton.crolley@nelsonmullins.com matthew.lindenbaum@nelsonmullins.com - and - Michelle Duprey, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE DUPREY, PLLC 720 E. 4th Street, Suite 300 Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (336) 685-1647 E-mail: michelledupreylaw@icloud.com ORLANDO HEALTH: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Response Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as W.W., v. Orlando Health, Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-01068-JSS-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order staying its deadline to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, appointment of class representative, appointment of class counsel, and supporting memorandum of law and disclose class certification rebuttal experts until the Court addresses the Plaintiff's anticipated forthcoming motion(s). Accordingly, Orlando Health requests that the Court rule on this Motion by October 17, 2025, and enter an order staying Orlando Health’s deadline to respond to the Motion for Class Certification and disclose class certification rebuttal experts until the Court rules on Plaintiff’s anticipated forthcoming motion(s). The Defendant is a not-for-profit healthcare organization. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tHYrDg at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Julie Singer Brady, Esq. Yameel L. Mercado Robles, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 649-4000 Facsimile: (407) 841-0168 E-mail: jsingerbrady@bakerlaw.com ymercadorobles@bakerlaw.com OSHKOSH CORP: Conspires to Fix Fire Trucks' Prices, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF AUGUSTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OSHKOSH CORPORATION, PIERCE MANUFACTURING, INC., REV GROUP, INC., ROSENBAUER AMERICA LLC, and FIRE APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01543 (E.D. Wis., October 7, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a proposed class of direct purchasers of fire trucks, due to Defendants' alleged violations of the Sherman Act. Beginning in or about January 2016, Manufacturing Defendants entered into an agreement, combination or conspiracy to limit the supply, and to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of fire trucks sold in the United States at supra-competitive levels. As a result of the unlawful conduct of Defendants, the Plaintiff and Class members paid artificially inflated prices for Fire Trucks and as a result have suffered antitrust injury to their business or property in violation of the federal antitrust laws. The Manufacturer Defendants have perpetrated their conspiracy in part through the Fire Apparatus Manufacturers' Association. The Manufacturer Defendants, along with most other fire truck manufacturers in the country, submit sensitive, non-public economic data to FAMA. FAMA sends the data to an outside consulting company, which compiles the data into reports that FAMA then distributes to its members, says the suit. Oshkosh Corporation designs and manufactures specialty vehicles and equipment, including aerial work platforms, tactical trucks, and firefighting vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory P. Hansel, Esq. Michael S. Smith, Esq. Elizabeth F. Quinby, Esq. Michael D. Hanify, Esq. PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU & PACHIOS, LLP One City Center P.O. Box 9546 Portland, ME 04112 Telephone: (207)791-3000 E-mail: ghansel@preti.com msmith@preti.com equinby@preti.com mhanify@preti.com - and - Joseph C. Kohn, Esq. William E. Hoese, Esq. Zahra R. Dean, Esq. KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com whoese@kohnswift.com zdean@kohnswift.com - and - Beth Kushner, Esq. Christopher E. Avallone, Esq. VON BRIESEN & ROPER, S.C. 411 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1000 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 276-1122 E-mail: beth.kushner@vonbriesen.com christopher.avallone@vonbriesen.com - and - William G. Caldes, Esq. Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Facsimile: (215) 496-6611 E-mail: BCaldes@srkattorneys.com JSpector@srkattorneys.com P & P TRANSPORTATION: Hernandez Sues Over Race Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------- MAURICIO HERNANDEZ Plaintiff v. P & P TRANSPORTATION, LLC, and PIAZZA PRODUCE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02038-SEB-KMB (S.D. Ind., October 7, 2025) is a class action seeking redress for Defendants' alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks redress for violations of the law including back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and all other relief available under law against Defendants and for injuries, damages, and losses when Plaintiff Hernandez was subjected to national origin, ethnicity, and race discrimination in the terms and conditions of his employment and was unlawfully terminated from his position. The Plaintiff first began working for Defendants on or about July 8, 2010. During his employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff was employed as a Straight Truck Driver and transported products between company warehouses. P & P Transportation, LLC provides long-haul and regional full-truckload freight services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Martin A. Brown, Esq. MERCHANT LAW, LLC 12115 Visionary Way, Suite 174 Fishers, IN 46038 Telephone: (317) 721-9417 E-mail: mab@merchlawfirm.com PACIFIC SEAFOOD: Olazabal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Seafood Los Angeles LLC. The case is styled as Jose R. Olazabal, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Pacific Seafood Los Angeles LLC, Case No. 25STCV30152 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 14, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Pacific Seafood Los Angeles LLC -- https://www.pacificseafood.com/ -- serve retail, food service, and wholesale customers throughout southern California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq. William Tran, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 962-6465 Fax: (818) 962-6469 Email: alindsay@d.law w.tran@d.law PARKE ENVIRONMENTAL: Macias Files Suit Over Labor Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTIAN MACIAS, JOVANNI PLATA and STARLIN TERRENO individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARKE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP INC. d/b/a RC GROUP INC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00524-KFW (D. Me., October 16, 2025) is a collective action complaint against the Defendant for unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Maine labor laws. According to the complaint, Defendant RC Group performs roofing, siding, lead abatement and environmental remediation services. The Plaintiffs and approximately four other similarly situated construction workers, worked on a prevailing wage project on behalf of Defendant. They worked more than 40 hours a week but were not paid time and one half for work performed after 40 hours a week. Rather, they were paid $50 an hour for all hours worked. To circumvent its obligations, the Defendant paid the first 40 hours via direct deposit with withholdings then paid a separate check for the overtime worked at straight time without withholdings. The complaint alleges that all potential class members have been subjected to the same policies of Defendant RC Group. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated are entitled to unpaid overtime and minimum wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs Christian Macias, Jovanni Plata and Starlin Terreno were formerly employed as construction workers by RC Group in the State of Maine. RC Group is a construction company that performs business in Maine and New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy Schmidt, Esq. Peter Mancuso, Esq. Borealis Law, PLLC 97 India St. Portland, ME 04101 Telephone: (207) 619-0884 E-mail: Andy@maineworkerjustice.com Peter@maineworkerjustice.com - and - Jacob Aronauer, Esq. The Law Offices of Jacob Aronauer 250 Broadway, Suite 600 New York, NY 10007 PENSKE LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alexander Says ----------------------------------------------------------- DORIAN ALEXANDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENSKE LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-03830-SHD (D. Ariz., Oct. 14, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Alexander was employed by the Defendant as a delivery helper. Penske Logistics LLC provides logistic management solutions. The Company offers financing and cost control, maintenance, managing vehicle lifecycle, operational support, operate safely, and compliance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Barrat, Esq. WEILER LAW PLLC 5050 N.40th St., Suite 260 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (480) 442-3410 Email: jbarrat@weilerlaw.com REGAL CINEMAS: Garza Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled PORFIRIO GARZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REGAL CINEMAS, INC., a foreign profit corporations; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Defendants, Case No. 25-2-25586-7 SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for King County to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on October 7, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01941 to the proceeding. In the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to certify a proposed class defined as all current and former employees of Regal Cinemas, Inc., who worked in Washington and earned less than twice the applicable state minimum hourly wage from September 4, 2022, through the date of certification of the Class. Regal Cinemas, Inc. is an American movie theater chain that is a subsidiary of the UK-based company Cineworld Group.[BN] Defendant Regal Cinemas, Inc. is represented by: Patrick M. Madden, Esq. Ryan J. Groshong, Esq. Benjamin Moore, Esq. 1420 5th Avenue, Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 288-0110 E-mail: patrick.madden@arnoldporter.com ryan.groshong@arnoldporter.com ben.moore@arnoldporter.com SALESLOFT INC: Clay Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ------------------------------------------------------ Jaqueline Clay, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SALESLOFT, INC.; and APPFOLIO, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05879-ELR (N.D. Ga., Oct. 14, 2025), is brought arising from Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and over 72,000 Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII"), from being stolen by cybercriminals in a foreseeable, preventable data breach. Between August 18 and August 22, 2025, criminal hackers accessed Salesloft's server and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII stored therein, including their full names, dates of birth, addresses, and Social Security numbers, (collectively, "Private Information"), causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members (the "Data Breach"). The Defendants breached their duties owed to Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to safeguard the Private Information that Defendants collected and maintained, including by failing to implement industry standards for data security to protect against cyberattacks or reasonably supervise their vendor's cybersecurity practices, which allowed criminal hackers to access and steal thousands of individuals' Private Information from Defendants' care. The Defendants failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive data or implement menial standards to prevent unauthorized intrusion to the cloud-based servers storing it. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendants' negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and their utter disregard for Plaintiff's and Class Members' privacy, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are consumers who transacted with AppFolio's real estate industry customers. Salesloft is a software as a service ("SaaS") company that provides a variety of software products by subscription to its corporate clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 260 Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Fax: (771) 772-3086 Email: cturner@milberg.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Gililland Sues Over Unlawful Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------- Trevor Gililland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-09841 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 14, 2025), is brought against the Defendant's unlawful advertising of their Products contains substantial discounts which were not true. The Products include refrigerators, ovens, ranges, dishwashers, microwaves, cooktops and hoods, washers, and dryers. The Products are sold online through Defendant's website, www.samsung.com. On its website, Defendant advertises substantial discounts off of its Appliance Products; for example, by including the sale price nearby the purported regular price shown in strikethrough front, next to a representation, often in in colorful font, that consumers will "Save $X" by purchasing the product. But Defendant does not sell its Products for the listed regular strikethrough prices. The list prices Defendant advertises are not actually Defendant's regular prices, because Defendant's Products are almost always available for much less than that. The Plaintiff bought a Smart Slide-in Induction Range and a Bespoke 4-Door French Door Refrigerator from Defendant from its website, www.samsung.com. Defendant represented that the Products the Plaintiff purchased had regular prices and were being sold to him at a specific discount from those purported regular prices. And based on Defendant's representations, the Plaintiff believed that he was purchasing Products whose regular prices and market values were the purported list prices that Defendant advertised and that he was receiving a substantial discount. These reasonable beliefs are what caused the Plaintiff to buy from Defendant when he did. The representations the Plaintiff relied on, however, were not true. The purported regular prices were not the true regular prices that Defendant sells the Products for and the purported discount was not the true discount. Had Defendant been truthful, the Plaintiff and other consumers like him would not have purchased Defendant's Products, or would have paid less for them, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Samsung Appliance Products from Defendant, advertised at a purported discount. The Defendant makes, markets, and sells home appliances.[BN] 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 Phone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: +1 (310) 656-7069 Email: simon@dovel.com jonas@dovel.com grace@dovel.com SANDISK LLC: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Sandisk SSDS Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-04152-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Jan. 13, 2026, at 10 a.m., will move the Court pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 for an order certifying the Proposed Class and Subclasses, appointing the named Plaintiffs as class representatives, and appointing Silver Golub & Teitell LLP and Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as class counsel. The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following proposed class: "All persons in the United States who purchased an Impacted Drive since 2020 (the "Class")." The Plaintiffs Jafri and Wang seek certification of their claims under California's CLRA, FAL, and UCL on behalf of the following proposed subclass: "All persons residing in the State of California who purchased an Impacted Drive since 2020 (the "California Subclass"). The Plaintiffs Perrin, Bayerl, and DeBonis seek certification of their claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, on behalf of the following proposed subclass: "All persons residing in the State of Florida who purchased an Impacted Drive since 2020 (the "Florida Subclass")." The Plaintiff Adair seeks certification of their claims under the New York Consumer Protection Law, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law section 349, on behalf of the following proposed subclass: "All persons residing in the State of New York who purchased an Impacted Drive since 2020 (the "New York Subclass" together with the California Subclass and the Florida Subclass, the "Subclasses")." The defective SSDs at issue are drives on the Atlas Refresh ("Atlas-R") platform: the 4TB Western Digital My Passport Portable SSD ("My Passport"); the 4TB SanDisk Extreme Portable SSD ("Extreme"); and the 1TB, 2TB, and 4TB SanDisk Extreme Pro Portable SSD ("Extreme Pro"). SanDisk is a technology company that specializes in the manufacture and sale of data storage devices, including portable, external solid-state drives ("SSDs"). A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zLqfQm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. Luke Sironski-White, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd, Ste 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com sbogdanovich@bursor.com lsironski@bursor.com - and - Ian W. Sloss, Esq. Johnathan Seredynski, Esq. Krystyna Gancoss, Esq. Samantha Blend, Esq. SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP One Landmark Square, Floor 15 Stamford, Connecticut 06901 Telephone: (203) 425-4491 E-mail: isloss@sgtlaw.com jseredynski@sgtlaw.com kgancoss@sgtlaw.com sblend@sgtlaw.com SANDISK LLC: Plaintiffs Seek to File Docs Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Sandisk SSDS Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-04152-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order allowing them to file under seal documents containing information or references to information that the Defendants have designated as Confidential. The Plaintiffs submit this request only to comply with their obligations under Local Rule 79-5 and take no position at this time on the propriety of other parties' confidentiality designations, or whether they meet the compelling reasons test for retaining confidentiality. The Plaintiffs request that the Court seal portions of the exhibits attached to the declaration of Neal J. Deckant filed in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for leave to File Second Amended Complaint: Document Portion to be Sealed The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class 2:16-19 Certification: 5:18-19 16:14-17 Exhibit 17 to the Declaration of Entire document Ian Sloss ISO Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification Exhibit 19 to the Declaration of Entire document Ian Sloss ISO Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification: Exhibit 20 to the Declaration of Ian Entire document Sloss ISO Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification: Exhibit 23 to the Declaration of Ian WD00000451-452 Sloss ISO Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification: These documents contain references to information provided by Defendants in discovery and designated as confidential by Defendants. SanDisk is a technology company that specializes in the manufacture and sale of data storage devices, including portable, external solid-state drives ("SSDs"). A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mDApXi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. Luke Sironski-White, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd, Ste 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com sbogdanovich@bursor.com lsironski@bursor.com - and - Ian W. Sloss, Esq. Johnathan Seredynski, Esq. Krystyna Gancoss, Esq. Samantha Blend, Esq. SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP One Landmark Square, Floor 15 Stamford, Connecticut 06901 Telephone: (203) 425-4491 E-mail: isloss@sgtlaw.com jseredynski@sgtlaw.com kgancoss@sgtlaw.com sblend@sgtlaw.com SCOTTS COMPANY: Calcagno Sues Over Fertilizer Products' False Ads ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARRIE CALCAGNO and PRAVEEN PATHANGI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE SCOTTS COMPANY, LLC and DOES 1–20, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-02661-GPC-DEB (S.D. Cal., October 7, 2025) is a consumer class action arising out of The Scotts Company's false advertising of its Miracle-Gro organic soil and fertilizer products in violation of the California's Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law and the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. According to the complaint, Scotts falsely represents that the Products are organic even though they contain synthetic, non-organic, and harmful forever chemicals known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Scotts uses the term organic to induce consumers into believing that the Products contain only naturally occurring, non-synthetic ingredients and are therefore a superior alternative to competing -- and less expensive -- products that are not labeled as organic. Reasonable consumers do not expect Scotts's organic Products to contain toxic forever chemicals like PFAS, especially when marketed for use in residential gardens to grow fruits and vegetables. Scotts fails to disclose that PFAS are present in its Products because it knows that this likely would influence their purchasing decisions to Scotts's financial detriment, alleges the suit. The Plaintiffs and Class members assert that they would not have purchased, or would have paid less money for Scotts's organic Products had they known that the Products contain PFAS. The Scotts Company, LLC manufactures, markets, and supplies lawn and garden products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Jennifer M. French, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 9171 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 180 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 762-1900 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 E-mail: todd@lcllp.com jennf@lcllp.com SCOTTS COMPANY: Fertilizer Products Contain PFAS, Waldner Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA WALDNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE SCOTTS COMPANY, LLC and DOES 1–20, Case No. 7:25-cv-08424 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2025) is a consumer class action arises out of The Scotts Company's false advertising of its Miracle-Gro organic soil and fertilizer products (the Products). According to the complaint, Scotts falsely represents that the Products are organic even though they contain synthetic, non-organic, and harmful forever chemicals known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Scotts uses the term organic to induce consumers into believing that the Products contain only naturally occurring, non-synthetic ingredients and are therefore a superior alternative to competing -- and less expensive -- products that are not labeled as organic. Reasonable consumers do not expect Scotts's organic Products to contain toxic forever chemicals like PFAS, especially when marketed for use in residential gardens to grow fruits and vegetables, says the suit. Scotts fails to disclose that PFAS are present in its Products because it knows that this likely would influence their purchasing decisions to Scotts's financial detriment. Scotts's misleading, deceptive, and false advertising, and its unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices, caused Waldner and Class members to purchase, purchase more of, or pay more for the Products than they would have but for Scotts's misrepresentations. Plaintiff Waldner purchased Scotts's Miracle-Gro Organic Potting Mix, Miracle-Gro and Organic Garden Soil, and Miracle-Gro Performance Organics All Purpose Container Mix from the Lowe's Home Centers store located at 206 Route 303, Orangeburg, NY 10962. She would not have purchased the Products, would not have purchased as many Products, and would not have paid the price premium that organic products command had she known that they contained synthetic, inorganic PFAS. THE SCOTTS COMPANY, LLC manufactures, markets, and supplies lawn and garden products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Jennifer M. French, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 9171 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 180 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 762-1903 E-mail: todd@lcllp.com jennf@lcllp.com SCOUT ENERGY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Dec. 15 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONNYE HAWKINS, DOYLE MCGRAW, TERESA WILLIAMS, and STEPHEN VAUGHT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01545-N (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David C. Godbey entered an order granting the Plaintiffs unopposed motion to modify class certification schedule: 1. The new deadline for the Plaintiffs to serve the motion for class certification on the Defendant is Dec. 15, 2025. 2. Therefore, May 20, 2026 remains the class certification submission date. Scout is a private energy investment manager and an upstream oil and gas operator. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OgYf7X at no extra charge.[CC] SINGULARITY FUTURE: Settles Crivellaro Shareholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Singularity Future Technology Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 14, 2025 that on May 29, 2025, the company and the lead plaintiffs in a putative class action against the company and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York executed a binding term sheet setting forth the material terms of their proposed settlement on a class wide basis. On July 13, 2025, the parties executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement. On December 9, 2022, Piero Crivellaro, purportedly on behalf of the persons or entities who purchased or acquired publicly traded securities of the company between February 2021 and November 2022, alleged violations of federal securities laws related to alleged false or misleading disclosures made by the company in its public filings. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, plus interest, costs, fees, and attorneys' fees. On November 20, 2023, the company filed a motion to dismiss said action. On December 17, 2024, the court issued an order that partially denied the motions to dismiss filed by the company and its former chief executive officer, Yang Jie, arising from various statements made by Yang Jie about two allegedly fraudulent transactions. The rest of the motions were granted. On January 2, 2025, the company filed an answer to a second amended class action complaint. Singularity Future Technology Ltd. is into the arrangement of transportation of freight & cargo based in New York. SKINNY MIXES: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Reese Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY REESE and RAMONA COLAMARCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SKINNY MIXES, LLC and NEW SKINNY MIXES, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-06432-MMG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Garnett entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- All fact discovery shall be completed no later than March 20, 2026. -- All expert discovery, including reports, production of underlying documents, and depositions, shall be completed no later than July 24, 2026. -- A conference regarding either submitted summary judgment letters or a joint status letter, as described further below in Paragraph 9, will be held on April 21, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. -- The parties' joint letter described in Part 9(c) shall include a proposed schedule for a motion for class certification and shall clarify whether additional discovery will be needed should the Court grant the motion. -- Initial requests for production of documents pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 shall be served by Nov. 1, 2025. -- The Plaintiffs' Motion shall be filed no later than June 11, 2026; the Defendants' Opposition shall be filed no later than Aug. 13, 2026; the Plaintiffs' reply shall be filed no later than Sept. 16, 2026. Skinny produces food products. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=93Q50i at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Ave of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 - and - David J. Creagan, Esq. WHITE AND WILLIAMS, LLP 1650 Market Street, Suite 1800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 SMK ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Jones Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SMK ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-08418 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.smokejazz.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on April 26, 2025, to access Defendant's Website from his home but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online content and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to place an online order for seafood. The Defendant's Website offers services online to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to browse for services, access navigation bar descriptions, and avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous services and location of the Defendant. [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 SUTTER HEALTH: $4.3MM Class Settlement in Sargony Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sargony, et al., v. Sutter Health, et al. (re Sutter Health, ERISA Litig.) Case No. 1:20-cv-01007-LHR-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rosenthal entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement, preliminarily certifying class for settlement purposes, approving form and manner of settlement notice, preliminarily approving plan of allocation, and scheduling fairness hearing: 1. The Court conditionally certifies the following class ("Settlement Class"): "All persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period (July 21, 2014 through the date the Preliminary Approval Order is entered by the Court), including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a person subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period." Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendant, the Defined Contribution Oversight Committee, the Board of Directors of Sutter Health (the "Board"), the individual members of the Defined Contribution Oversight Committee and the Board and their Beneficiaries. 2. The Court preliminarily appoints Christina Bonicarlo, Adam Blackburn, Tabitha Hoglund, and Nicole Garcia as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class, and Miller Shah LLP and Capozzi Adler, P.C. as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. 3. The amount of the Settlement -- $4,300,000.00 -- provided by the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate, considering the costs, risks, and delay of litigation, trial, and appeal. 4. A hearing is scheduled for April 10, 2026, at 11 :00 a.m. PDT by Zoom videoconference. This Class Action involves claims for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") with respect to the Sutter Health 403 (b) Savings Plan ("Plan"). Sutter is a not-for-profit integrated health delivery system. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a4siX2 at no extra charge.[CC] SYMETRA LIFE: Seeks More Time to File Response in Alexander ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alexander v. Harris, et al. (RE: AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION), Case No. 1:22-cv-01128-STA-jay (W.D. Tenn.), Symetra Life Insurance Company asks the Court to enter an order granting the motion and extending the deadline for Symetra to file its response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification through and including Nov. 3, 2025. The extension will provide sufficient time for Symetra to prepare its opposition in light of other briefing obligations in this matter, including responses to summary judgment motions and the Plaintiffs' motion in limine, as well as significant deadlines in other matters. The requested extension is reasonable; this motion is filed in good faith and not for any purpose of delay or any other unjust purpose; Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion; and no party will be prejudiced by the extension requested in this motion. On May 7, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. On August 27, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion without prejudice. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Urqkn8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Markham R. Leventhal, Esq. Benjamin M. Stoll, Esq. Scott M. Abeles, Esq. Rachel A. Oostendorp, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. 1625 Eye Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 965-8189 E-mail: mleventhal@carltonfields.com bstoll@carltonfields.com sabeles@carltonfields.com roostendorp@carltonfields.com SYMMETRY FINANCIAL: Bennett Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADY BENNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SYMMETRY FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, and QUILITY SOFTWARE APPLICATIONS LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00067-MR-WCM (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for him to file his motion for class certification by 60 days, to Jan. 2, 2026. The Plaintiff is currently working with Level Up to obtain relevant information before any motion to compel as to the Defendants. Counsel for Level Up stated that he was still working with his client on the requested records, but that the alleged calls involved a subcontractor of Level Up, who is based in Pakistan and who no longer has a relationship with Level Up. The Plaintiff seeks to certify three classes under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Those putative classes consist of: "persons in the United States who received two or more calls from or on behalf of the Defendants, Symmetry Financial Group, LLC ("Symmetry") or Quility Software Applications LLC ("Quility" and with Symmetry "Defendants") call within a 12- month period, promoting the goods or services of the Defendants." Symmetry offers life insurance, disability insurance, and retirement planning for doctors, dentists and professionals. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AGpsVz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C. 30 East Butler Pike Ambler, PA 19002 Telephone: (267) 468-5374 E-mail: jginsburg@creditlaw.com - and - Alex D. Kruzyk, Esq. PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC 7500 Rialto Blvd. Suite 1-250 Austin, TX 78735 Telephone: (561) 726-8444 E-mail: akruzyk@pkglegal.com - and - Mitchel Erik Luxenburg, Esq. THE LAW FIRM OF MITCH LUXENBURG LLC 23875 Commerce Park Rd, Beachwood, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) -452-9301 E-mail: mitch@mluxlaw.com TESOLIFE US: Wills Balks at Blind User-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- LAURENCE WILLS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TESOLIFE US, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05707 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2025) sues the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, www.tesolife.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on May 5, 2025, to access Defendant's Website from Plaintiff's 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. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase original Chinese products. The Plaintiff's desire for this service was due to the fact that he was searching for authentic, high-quality Chinese goods, which were hard to find through local retailers. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which the Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com TICKETMASTER LLC: Holmes Suit Transferred to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Nadine Holmes, and others similarly situated v. Ticketmaster LLC, Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01138 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-09807-MCS-AS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Ticketmaster Entertainment, LLC -- https://www.ticketmaster.com/ -- is an American ticket sales and distribution company based in Beverly Hills, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cory L. Zajdel, Esq. David Matthew Trojanowski, Esq. Z LAW LLC 2345 York Road Suite B-13 Timonium, MD 21093 Phone: (443) 213-1977 Email: clz@zlawmaryland.com dmt@zlawmaryland.com - and - Oren S. Giskan, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON, LLP 1 Rockefeller Plaza, 8th Floor New York, NY 10020 Phone: (646) 964-9644 Email: ogiskan@gslawny.com The Defendants are represented by: Lindsay Harrison, Esq. 1099 New York Ave NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (617) 501-3727 Email: lharrison@jenner.com TTI OUTDOOR POWER: Custer Sues Over Dangerous Defective Product --------------------------------------------------------------- Keith Custer, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TTI OUTDOOR POWER EQUIPMENT, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-13002-JEK (D. Mass., Oct. 14, 2025), is brought against Defendant for selling its "Ryobi" branded electric pressure washers, including but not limited to the RY142300 and RY142711VNM models (the "Products") which have a dangerous defect. Specifically, the pressure washer's capacitor can overheat and burst, causing parts to be forcefully ejected, posing a risk of serious injury from impact to the user or bystanders (the "Defect"). The Defendant has been aware of the Defect, which is dangerous, for years having received "135 reports of capacitors overheating, including 41 reports of explosions, resulting in 32 injuries and/or fractures to the fingers, hands, face, and eyes." On August 8, 2025, the Products were recalled (the "Recall"), and consumers were instructed to "immediately stop using" them. Hence, the pressure washers are unreasonably dangerous, and unsuitable for their principal and intended purpose. Defendant refuses to provide refunds for its admittedly defective pressure washers. Instead, consumers' only option is to attempt to repair the Products themselves—regardless of whether they have the tools, aptitude or time to do so. By selling a dangerously defective product, Defendant violated the Uniform Commercial Code's ("UCC") warranty provisions and Massachusetts consumer protection statutes. Prior to the Recall and despite the serious safety dangers presented by the Products, Defendant intentionally marketed and sold the Products as safe and fit for their intended purpose and failed to effectively disclose to consumers that Products posed a risk of explosion. The Defendant knew, or should have known, of these incidents, yet it did nothing. Indeed, despite reported incidents dating back to 2017, Defendant failed to issue any warning or make design changes to remedy the Defect and continued profiting from its sales throughout the United States, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased RY142300in approximately 2020 from a Home Depot located in Massachusetts. The Defendant engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, importing, marketing, labeling, distributing, selling and/or introducing into interstate commerce the "Ryobi" branded pressure washers, including the Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Harris, Esq. Russell Busch, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan St. Raleigh, NC 27603 Phone: (919) 600-5003 Fax: (919) 600-5035 Email: sharris@milberg.com rbusch@brysonpllc.com - and - Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Ryan T. Gott, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Ave. S., Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Phone: (612) 389-0600 Email: mweiner@pwfirm.com rgott@pwfirm.com - and - Rachel Soffin, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, California 91403 Phone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 Email: rsoffin@milberg.com - and - Nick Suciu, III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Phone: (313) 303-3472 Email: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. BRYSON HARRIS SUCIU & DEMAY PLLC 402 West Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 810-7047 Email: tkashima@brysonpllc.com UNITED CEREBRAL: Harris Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- CHINA HARRIS and CYNTHIA MOLETTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY SEGUIN OF GREATER CHICAGO, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12350 (N.D. Ill., October 9, 2025) seeks all available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act for Defendant's failure to pay all compensation owed. Plaintiffs Harris and Molette were employed by UCP Seguin as salaried Extended Support Specialists between June 2023 and July 2024 and between June 2022 and March 2024, respectively. The complaint asserts that Plaintiffs and Class Members were all subject to UCP Seguin's uniform policy of not properly calculating overtime compensation. By failing to pay all the overtime compensation owed to Plaintiffs and Class Members, UCP Seguin acted willfully and in reckless disregard of clearly applicable FLSA provisions and Illinois state law, says the suit. United Cerebral Palsy Seguin of Greater Chicago is an Illinois non-profit corporation with its principal place of business in Cicero, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4620 E-mail: crodriguez@bergermontague.com - and - Mariyam Hussain, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (773) 666-4316 E-mail: mhussain@bergermontague.com US LBM: Royston Class Suit Removed to M.D. Pa. ---------------------------------------------- The case styled as TIMOTHY ROYSTON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. US LBM OPERATING COMPANY 2009, LLC d/b/a MYERS BUILDING PRODUCT SPECIALISTS, Defendant, Case No. 2024-SU-0643, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County, Pennsylvania to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on October 16, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01954-KMN to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts individual causes of action for disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and interference with Plaintiff's rights to healthcare benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Complaint also asserts individual and class/collective claims for denial of proper minimum wage and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. US LBM OPERATING COMPANY is a building materials distributor in the United States.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Mariah H. McGrogan, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 225 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 288-3152 Facsimile: (412) 288-3063 E-mail: mmcgrogan@reedsmith.com VILLAGES AT NOAH'S: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK MURPHY AND MARIA MURPHY, as guardians of OLIVIA MURPHY, BERNITA GIGOWSKI as guardian of SARAH MELISSA GIGOWSKI, DEBORAH HOLLAND as guardian of SEAN HOLLAND, LUANNE SELLS, as guardian of TYLER RAYMOND SELLS, SUZANNE PREVATT TRUEBLOOD, as guardian of AUSTIN JAMES TRUEBLOOD, v. VILLAGES AT NOAH'S LANDING LTD., NOAH'S ARK OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, INC. d/b/a ROAR FLORIDA, ATALA CONSULTING, LLC, ROYAL AMERICAN MANAGEMENT, INC., and CONSTANCE BAMBERG, Case No. 8:25-cv-00022-TPB-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time, until Nov. 21, 2025, to file a response to the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. Because there is no operative complaint, and because the parties anticipate the Second Amended Complaint shall necessitate amending the Motion to Certify Class, the Defendants request until Nov. 21, 2025, to respond to the current Motion to Certify Class. The Defendants have not been negligent with respect to this matter, lacked diligence, or acted in bad faith. Instead, upon receiving and reviewing the Order Granting Defendants' motions to dismiss, the Defendants set a videoconference with counsel for Plaintiffs regarding the impact of the Order on the Motion to Certify Class and Defendants' responses. Defendants also expressed consent to Plaintiffs filing a motion for leave to amend their Motion to Certify Class. However, in an abundance of caution, Defendants are filing this Motion to Extend before Plaintiffs seek leave to amend their Motion to Certify Class (should they ultimately choose to do so), to ensure compliance with Rule 6(b)(1)(A). On Sept. 4, 2025, while the motions to dismiss were pending, the Plaintiffs filed their motion to certify class as to Counts VI-IX of the Amended Complaint. The Motion to Certify Class seeks to certify a class as to four counts in the Amended Complaint: violation of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count VI), breach of contract as third-party beneficiary (Count VII), fraud (Count VIII), and unjust enrichment (Count IX). On Sept. 30, 2025, the Court entered its Order granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss. Villages is a dynamic residential community for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Df4cVU at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Allan J. Rotlewicz, Esq. CALLAHAN & FUSCO, LLC 200 SW 1st Avenue, Suite 940 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (877) 618-9770 Facsimile: (954) 252-2308 E-mail: arotlewicz@callahanfusco.com eserve@callahanfusco.com - and - Noel F. Johnson, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2401 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 957-1157 Facsimile: (786) 957-1158 E-mail: Noel.Johnson@Dinsmore.com Jessica.SanMartin@Dinsmore.com - and - Jeffrey M. Partlow, Esq. Geraldine P. Asher, Esq. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. Tower Place, Suite 400 1900 Summit Tower Boulevard Orlando, FL 32810 Telephone: (321) 972-0079 Facsimile: (321) 972-0099 E-mail: jeffrey.partlow@csklegal.com geraldine.asher@csklegal.com deeana.bryant@csklegal.com VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY: Parties Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEREDITH FAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:23-cv-03897-CMR (E.D. Pa.), the parties request the Court granting Plaintiff leave to file her Motion for Class Certification and Defendant leave to file its Response to Motion for Class Certification. Accordingly, the parties request that this Court grant Plaintiff leave to file her Motion for Class Certification with a maximum of twenty (20) pages and Defendant leave to file its Response to Motion for Class Certification with a maximum of twenty (20) pages. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FOV3Pf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: nickc@lcllp.com - and - Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Anthony Alesandro, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. 1 Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael E. Baughman, Esq. Christopher R. Healy TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 3000 Two Logan Square 18th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 981-4000 E-mail: michael.baughman@troutman.com christopher.healy@troutman.com WALMART INC: Adam Sues Over Mislabeled Protein Shake ---------------------------------------------------- JANICE ADAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25cv149160 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., Oct. 14, 2025) is a class action seeking to redress the Defendants' false, misleading and deceptive practices in labeling and marketing of the Equate Protein Shake Chocolate ("Product" and/or "Products"), which claims to have 30 grams of protein per serving and provides 60% Daily Value (%DV) (the "Protein Representation"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, contrary to Defendant's Protein Representation, testing of the Defendant's Product by the Plaintiffs' counsel found that the Product contains only approximately 26.98 grams of protein per serving, roughly 10% deviation from the advertised amount. The Defendants' unlawful and misleading protein claims caused Plaintiff and members of the class to pay a price premium for the Product. The Plaintiff and class members were injured because they paid more for the Product based on its protein representations than they would have had they known of the misleading advertising, says the suit. Walmart Inc. operates discount stores, supercenters, and neighborhood markets. The Company offers merchandise such as apparel, house wares, small appliances, electronics, musical instruments, books, home improvement, shoes, jewelry, toddler, games, household essentials, pets, pharmaceutical products, party supplies, and automotive tools. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: II Mark D. Potter, Esq. II James M. Treglio, Esq. Cara Townsend, Esq. Isabel Rose Masanque, Esq. Bree Durso, Esq. THE RIGHT TRIAL LAWYERS 1410 E Winding Way, Suite B Friendswood, TX 77546 Telephone: (415) 534-0530 Facsimile: (888) 422-5191 Email: Mark@trtl.law JimT@trtl.law CaraT@trtl.law IsabelM@trtl.law BreeDurso@trtl.law WEBER-STEPHEN PRODUCTS: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Weber-Stephen Products, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-03945-KMM-LIB (D. Minn., Oct. 14, 2025), is brought arising because the Defendant's Website (www.weber.com) is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"). As a consequence of Plaintiffs experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on their behalf, Plaintiffs found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiffs full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiffs would like to, intend to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiffs and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are and have been legally blind and are therefore disabled. The Defendant offers grills for sale including, but not limited to, gas grills, wood pellet grills, electric grills, griddles, replacement parts, accessories, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com WILKES UNIVERSITY: Buller Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ------------------------------------------------------------ Autumn Buller and Vincent Abbott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WILKES UNIVERSITY, Case No. 3:25-cv-01941-JKM (M.D. Pa., Oct. 15, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated individuals' ("Class Members") personally identifying information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, student ID numbers, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers or state identification numbers, financial account numbers, financial aid information, health insurance policy number, and/or medical alert information. (collectively "PII" or "Private Information"). The Plaintiff and Class Members are individuals who were required to indirectly and/or directly provide Defendant with their Private Information in order to obtain services from Defendant. By collecting, storing, and maintaining Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information, Wilkes has a resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the Private Information that it collects and stores against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Despite Defendant's duty to safeguard the Private Information of Plaintiffs and Class Members, their Private Information in Defendant's possession was compromised when an unauthorized party gained access to Defendant's network environment and exfiltrated sensitive data stored therein on or about January 25, 2025 (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiffs and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use. As a result, Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII was compromised by an unauthorized third-party. Plaintiffs and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe and are entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information is now in the hands of cybercriminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided her Private Information indirectly and/or directly to Defendant, and that PII was compromised during the Data Breach. Wilkes University is a private, nonprofit institution of higher education located in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Stephen F. Connolly, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 267-609-6910 Fax: 267-609-6955 Email: jerry@lcllp.com steve@lcllp.com WILKES UNIVERSITY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Grandinetti Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA GRANDINETTI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILKES UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01948-KM (M.D. Pa., October 16, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for its failure to protect highly sensitive data, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") of 27,632 individuals, including current and former employees and students, as part of its business operations. However, the Defendant lost control over this data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. From January 25 to January 26, 2025, the Defendant was hacked, resulting in the compromise of the following PII: full names, addresses, dates of birth, student ID numbers, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, state identification numbers, financial account numbers, financial aid information, health insurance policy numbers, and medical alert information. The Defendant admitted that it discovered the data breach on September 22, 2025, yet waited until October 8, 2025, to begin notifying the affected class--a full 256 days after the breach began, the complaint asserts. The Plaintiff is a data breach victim, having received a breach notice, notes the complaint. The Plaintiff alleges that she suffered actual injury from the exposure and theft of her PII--which violates her rights to privacy. Plaintiff Maria Grandinetti is a former employee and student of Defendant. The Defendant is a private university based in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C. 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575-3895 E-mail: phoward@smbb.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss Raina C. Borrelli STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com YEHUDA SHMIDMAN: Court OKs Settlement Distribution Plan in "D'Arcy" ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Peter D'Arcy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Yehuda Shmidman, Karen Murray, Gary Klein, Andrew Cooper, Chad Wagenheim, Peter Lops, David Conn, Daniel Hanbridge, Lorraine Disanto, William Sweedler, Aaron Hollander, Al Gossett, Stewart Leonard, Jr., and CohnReznick LLP, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-07296 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved Lead Plaintiff's plan for distribution of the Net Settlement Fund to Authorized Claimants in this securities class action. The Court adopted the administrative determinations of the Court-approved Claims Administrator, Angeion Group. The Court directed Angeion Group to conduct an initial distribution of the available balance of the Net Settlement Fund, after deducting all payments approved by the Court, including for the payment or estimate of any Taxes and escrow fees while maintaining a 10% reserve to address any claims administration-related contingencies that may arise. Angeion will calculate award amounts to all Authorized Claimants from the Net Settlement Fund and will eliminate any Authorized Claimant whose award amount is calculated to be less than $10.00. Such Authorized Claimants will not receive any distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. After eliminating Claimants who would have received less than $10.00, Angeion will recalculate the pro rata distribution payments for Authorized Claimants who would have received $10.00 or more. Distribution checks will bear the notation CASH PROMPTLY, VOID AND SUBJECT TO RE-DISTRIBUTION IF NOT CASHED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF ISSUE DATE to encourage Authorized Claimants to promptly cash their distributions. Authorized Claimants who do not cash their distribution checks within the time allotted will irrevocably forfeit all recovery from the Settlement, and the funds allocated to such stale-dated checks will be subject to re-distribution. If any funds remain in the Net Settlement Fund after determining that further re-distribution is no longer cost-effective, the funds shall be contributed to the New York Bar Foundation, or such other private, non-profit, non-sectarian 501(c)(3) organization designated by Lead Plaintiff and approved by the Court. The Court approved all of Angeion Group's fees and expenses incurred in the administration of the Settlement and directed Lead Counsel to pay the outstanding balance of $21,193.30 out of the Settlement Fund to Angeion Group. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6EHhFG from PacerMonitor.com ********* 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 ***