251030.mbx

251030.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, October 30, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 217 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Zache Personal Injury Suit Removed to M.D. Fla. ACUSHNET CO: Faces Class Action Over Titleist Golf Balls' False Ads AHLSTROM NA: Faces Class Action Over Wage and Hour Violations AIO EVENTS: Faces Mendez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ALLSTATE INSURANCE: $4MM Settlement Final OK Hearing Set Dec. 2 AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Agrees to Settle Makena Suit for $7.5-Mil. ANASTASIA BEVERLY: Moran Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Beats Headphones APPLE INC: Loses UK's First App Store Class Action Case ARHAUS INC: Agrees to Settle Inflated Prices Class Suit for $6MM ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL: Alameda Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. AUSTRALIA: Women Join Sexual Abuse, Discrimination Class Action BAESMAN GROUP: Install Data Broker Software on Website, Suit Claims BANK OF NEW YORK: Aids Sex-Trafficking Operation, Doe Suit Alleges BAREFOOT DREAMS: Blatt Sues Over Unlawfully Recorded Communications BENEFITS NOW: Bid for Class Cert Due March 6, 2026 BESTWAY USA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Pools BETHANY OPERATING: Sorrell Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA BLUE CIRCLE: Spero Sues Over Salmon's Undisclosed Color Additive BRAG HOUSE: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to House of Doge BRICKELL BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Over "All Natural" Claims BSMITH PROTECTION: Parente Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BUILT BRANDS: Moran Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind C&S WHOLESALE: Appeals Remand Order in Tercero Suit to 9th Circuit CALIFORNIA: Judge Certifies Suit Over School Gender Policies CANADA: Indian Boarding Homes Suit Extended to 365 Days for Claims CANADA: OCA Upholds Class Certification on Immigration Detainees CANNON CORP: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $537,500 CARTICA ACQUISITION: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Nidar CNB BANK: M&S Investigates Proposed Sale to HBT Financial CONDUENT BUSINESS: Bordelon Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Info CONGREGATION TIFERETH ISRAEL: Schaffer Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. COOS COUNTY FAMILY: Delisle Sues Over Failure to Secure Information CORBAN ONESOURCE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Maryland Says COUPANG INC: New York Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. COVE DRINKS: Sicairos Sues Over Probiotic Sodas' Misleading Labels CUSTOM BUILDING PRODUCTS: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CVS CAREMARK: Hamburger Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid DARREN W. WOODS: HPORS Sues Over Fiduciary Breach DAVE & BUSTER'S: Kent Sues Over Data Disclosure to Third Parties DELUX PUBLIC CHARTER: Kim Suit Removed to C.D. California DICK'S SPORTING: Magallanez Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls DISCORD INC: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, Zou Says DONALD TRUMP: Bid for Class Certification Tossed w/o Prejudice DR PIZZA: Gifford Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 10th Circuit DUNHUANG BOSTON: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Chefs, Liao Says EASTERN GROUP: Hawk Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages EMERALD LABS: Lopez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ENDURA HEALTHCARE: Bubble Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ENDURANCE WARRANTY: Rodriguez Balks at Unsolicited E-mail Ads ENTEGRIS INC: Wood Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ERY VESSEL: Moran Sues Over Online Store's Website Access Barriers EVERGY INC: 401(k) Plan Member Class Wins Certification EXCLUSIVE FURNITURE: Hampton Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE: Gensoli Suit Transferred to D. Vermont FEDEX GROUND: Claiborne Suit Transferred to M.D. North Carolina FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Williams Class Suit Over Warranty Extensions FIREFLY AEROSPACE: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims FIRST SAVINGS: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to First Merchants FISHERMAN'S COVE: Underpays Restaurant Butchers, Martinez Alleges FLYING FOOD: Sanchez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. FORIS DAX: Aids Third Parties to Collect Clients' Data, Ortiz Says GETAWAY TAMPA: Bowles Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective GFA ALABAMA: Response to FAC Extended to Nov. 6 GLOBAL E-TRADING: $12.5MM Settlement Final OK Hearing Set Dec. 2 GOOGLE LLC: Faces Suit Over Chromebooks' Easy Access to Online Porn GOOGLE LLC: Plaintiffs Seek Additional $2.36-Bil. Class Settlement GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Paus Claims GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Rosas Says HEAVENLY FINEST: Faces Velasquez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. HTH COMMUNICATIONS: Duffy Sues Over Unlawful Advertisement HUDSON'S BAY: Former Simpsons Employees Sue Over Pension Surplus HUEL INC: Faces Class Suit Over Heavy Metals in Protein Drink HUEL INC: Riley Sues Over Food Products' Harmful Lead Content HYUNDAI MOTOR: Burns Sues Over Concealment of Defect INSTITUTE OF CULINARY: Adame Files Suit in S.D. New York JELLY BELLY CANDY: Lewis Suit Removed to S.D. Florida KELLY SERVICES: Faces Sines Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages KENDRA SCOTT: Faces Class Suit Over Fake Jewelry Discounts KINDERCARE EDUCATION: Atmore Suit Removed to N.D. California KINDERCARE LEARNING: Ilyasov Balks at False Registration Statements KNIFE RIVER: Smith Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages LA RUANA PAISA: Florez Sues Over Unlawful Employment Discrimination LAND O'LAKES INC: Lenz Suit Removed to E.D. California LANDS' END: Appeals Court Reaffirms Order in Uniform Class Suit LANGDON & COMPANY: Holland Suit Removed to E.D. North Carolina LATHROP LOGISTICS: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LAUNDRESS LLC: Filing of Class Cert Bid Under Seal Sought LAUNDRESS LLC: Ostenfeld Seeks to Certify Consumer Class LINCOLN NATIONAL: Turner Seeks Customer Care Specialists' OT Pay LINKAN ENGINEERING: Underpays Water Treatment Workers, Smith Says LIVE NATION: Seeks to File Opposition to Class Certification Bid LIVE NATION: Word Limit Extension to Class Cert Opposition OK'd MAPLEBEAR INC: Collects Biometrics Without Consent, Lewis Suit Says MARIBEL'S SWEETS: Hernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MEDSTAR HEALTH: Faces Outen Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info MEDTECH PRODUCTS: Faces Class Suit Over Contaminated Cough Syrup MESHKI LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, McCormick Says META PLATFORMS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Impersonation Ads METEORA: Faces Class Suit Over MELANIA and LIBRA Meme Coins MOONLAKE IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS: Peters Sues Over Drop of Stock Price MOONLAKE: Bridgewood Sues Over Exchange Act Violation MORGAN STANLEY: Berger Sues Over Misleading Proxy for Merger Deal MUSKOKA RECOVERY: Faces Suit Over Treatment Centre's Negligence NEWPORT GROUP: Seeks More Time to File Response in Carmichael NORTH ATLANTIC: Faces Class Suit Over Website's Fake Discounts NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit Over Bias Against Arab Students NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: $8.5MM Settlement Final Hearing Set Mar. 31 OAKBERRY ACAI: Faces Class Action Over Products' False Ads ORLANDO FAMILY: Dunn Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ORLANDO HEALTH: Bid to Stay Class Cert Reply Deadline Partly OK'd PIPE-LINE OF SMITHTOWN: Poschmann Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL PLATINUM RESORT: Cannon Sues Over Unlawfully Used Consumer Report POPPY'S CAFE: Faces Wills Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website POSTABLE LLC: Faces Tims Class Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages PROPER WAY SERVICES: Faces Saez Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Conn. PURE'S FOOD: Noriega Sues Over Illegal Video Recording in Workplace PYRAMID ADVISORS: Duchesne Files Suit in D. Massachusetts PYRAMID GLOBAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Clark Says PYRAMID HEALTHCARE: Davis Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination RAWLINGS COMPANY: Dascenzo Appeals Suit Dismissal to 6th Circuit REALPLAY TECH: Faces Clark Class Suit Over Illegal Online Casino REALREAL INC: Faces Class Suit Over "Junk Fee" on Returned Items RICHARD SACKLER: Faces San Miguel Class Suit Over Opioid Crisis RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Tamayo Appeals Arbitration Order to 9th Cir. RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Agrees to Settle Securities Class Suit for $250M ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Suit Over Major Wireless Outage ROLL-N-ROASTER CORP: Wills Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website RTX CORP: New England Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit SALESFORCE INC: Faces Tanzer Suit Over Use of Copyrighted Books SALESLOFT INC: Faces Houdek Suit Over Compromised Clients' Info SALESLOFT INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Keegan Alleges SALESPROMIS LLC: Faces Wilson Suit Over Unwanted Telephone Calls SOLIDCORE HOLD: Stephenson Seeks Equal Web Access for the Blind SONDERMIND INC: Discloses Personal Sensitive Info to Meta, Google SPIRIT AVIATION: Faces Securities Class Action in S.D. Fla. ST. PETER'S HEALTH: O'Brien Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Tucker Class Suit Removed to E.D. Pa. STRONACH GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over AI Horse-Betting Scheme SURREY REALTY: Bid to Engage in Class Discovery Tossed as Moot TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES: Faces Suit Over Defective Pressure Washers TOTAL SYSTEM: Faces White FCRA Suit Over Consumer Reports TREND HEALTH: Washington Class Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA TRINSEO PLC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims TUNDRA RESTAURANT: Schallert Sues Over Illegal Data Collection UNCHARTERED LABS: Woulard Sues Over Direct Copyright Infringement UNITED STATES: Class Cert Response Due Nov. 20 UNITED STATES: Faces Singla Suit Over Civil Rights' Violations UNITED STATES: Fails to Protect Beneficiary Rights, Class Suit Says UNITED STATES: Womack Suit Seeks to Recover Back Pay Under FLSA UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: $5M Settlement Final Hearing Set Jan. 28 VANCOUVER, BC: Lapu-Lapu Day Festival Victim Seeks Cert. of Suit VANGUARD INVESTOR: Agrees to Settle Securities Suit for $25MM VIVOS XPOINT: Igloo Bunker Residents Sue Over Illegal Lease WAKPAMNI LAKE: Wood Sues Over Illegal Rent-A-Tribe Lending Scheme WATSON CLINIC: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Suit for $10MM WEST VIRGINIA: Violates Constitutional Rights, Kaso Suit Says WESTON TABLE: Evans Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Montefusco Says WIRED NYC: General Pretrial Management Entered in Fernandez Suit WPP PLC: To Defend Securities Class Action Suit in S.D.N.Y. ZETA GLOBAL: Court Consolidates Ayerdi and A.P. Actions ********* 3M COMPANY: Zache Personal Injury Suit Removed to M.D. Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case JERELYN ZACHE, CHIQUITA BREWTON for herself and o/b/o minor A.B., JEANINE CADY, JULIE COOMER, LORI FARRINGTON, STEPHANIE GOMEZ, JENNIFER LUFFMAN, JESSICA MCCONNAUGHEY, ELEANOR PEETE, and CARL PRATHER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.); TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., as successor-in-interest to THE ANSUL COMPANY; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC. (f/k/a CHUBB NATIONAL FOAM, INC. and NATIONAL FOAM, INC.), individually and as successor in interest to NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC. (f/k/a WILLIAMS US INC. and WILLIAMS HOLDINGS, INC.), individually and as successor-in-interest to NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FENWAL, INC. (f/k/a FENWAL INC.), individually and as successor-in-interest to NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE INTERLOGIX, INC.), individually and as successor-in-interest to NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; FLORIDA STATE FIRE COLLEGE; and COLLEGE OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, Case No. 2025-CA-001065, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Marion County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on October 15, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00648 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs bring this suit against the Defendants for their personal injuries, medical monitoring, and property damage as a result of their exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film-forming foam ("AFFF"), which contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products, headquartered in North Carolina. Kidde PLC, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Kidde Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection and ignition/temperature control products, headquartered in Massachusetts. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. Florida State Fire College is a firefighters academy in Florida. College of Central Florida is a public college in Florida. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael D. Sloan, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. CityPlace Tower 525 Okeechobee Blvd., Ste. 1200 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 822-2979 Facsimile: (561) 659-7368 Email: msloan@carltonfields.com ACUSHNET CO: Faces Class Action Over Titleist Golf Balls' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a group of consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Acushnet Co. Why: The consumers claim Acushnet sold boxes of Titleist golf balls that contained fewer with "Enhanced Alignment" than advertised. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Missouri federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Acushnet Co. of falsely advertising boxes of its Titleist golf balls as containing 12 of its Pro V1x (Left Dash) golf balls with "Enhanced Alignment." A group of consumers claim the boxes actually only contain nine of those balls, in addition to three unwanted Titleist 2023 Pro V1x golf balls with "Enhanced Alignment." The group further argues Acushnet knew about its "false marketing, advertising, packaging, distribution, and/or sale" of the mixed boxes of Titleist golf balls. "Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Mixed Box had they known only nine of the twelve balls inside were Left Dash EA," the Acushnet class action says. The plaintiffs want to represent a nationwide class of consumers who bought a box purportedly containing one dozen Titleist Pro V1x Left Dash golf balls with Enhanced Alignment, but who received a box containing fewer than one dozen of such golf balls. Class action: Acushnet sold mixed boxes of Titleist golf balls to 'stretch' inventory Acushnet allegedly made the decision to stretch its inventory of the Left Dash EA golf balls by only putting nine in a box instead of the advertised 12, according to the Acushnet class action. The group further claims Acushnet made the mixed boxes of Titleist golf balls to sell lower in-demand Pro V1x EA balls "masquerading" in the place of higher in-demand Left Dash EA balls. "This reduced Defendant's inventory of soon-to-be outdated and decreasingly popular 2023 Pro V1x EA golf balls before the release of the new 2025 Pro V1x iteration," the Acushnet class action says. The group claims Acushnet is guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation or deceit, fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty and unjust enrichment, and violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and Massachusetts Unfair and/or Deceptive Acts or Practices law. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and request declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory, exemplary, treble, punitive, and/or statutory damages for themselves and all class members. In another golf-related complaint, a consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Supreme Golf Inc. in April over claims the company violated New York law by failing to disclose booking fees until the final stage of the booking process. The plaintiffs are represented by Bryan J. Schrempf, David R. Bohm and Katherine M. Flett of Danna McKitrick, P.C. and Fernando Bermudez of Bermudez Law Firm. The Acushnet class action lawsuit is Long, et al. v. Acushnet Co., Case No. 4:25-cv-01332, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. [GN] AHLSTROM NA: Faces Class Action Over Wage and Hour Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Tez Romero, writing for HRD, reports that a Wisconsin manufacturer is under fire after a former employee filed a class action complaint on October 20, 2025, alleging widespread wage and hour violations that could have big implications for HR teams everywhere. Ahlstrom NA Specialty Solutions LLC, a Connecticut-based manufacturing company with operations in Wisconsin, stands accused of shortchanging its hourly workers by shaving time off their paychecks and failing to properly calculate overtime. The lawsuit, brought by Sean Crawford, a former utility operator at the company's Kaukauna, Wisconsin facility, claims these practices have been going on for at least three years and have affected a broad group of current and former employees. According to the complaint, Crawford alleges that Ahlstrom's electronic timekeeping system routinely rounded employees' clock-in and clock-out times to the company's benefit. Workers were expected to arrive before their scheduled shifts and start working immediately, but the company allegedly rounded their start times forward, erasing minutes of work from their records. The same thing happened at the end of shifts, with post-shift work time rounded back, leaving employees uncompensated for work performed after their scheduled end times. The complaint doesn't stop there. Crawford also claims that Ahlstrom failed to include bonuses, incentives, and other non-discretionary payments in its calculation of overtime pay. Under federal and Wisconsin law, these types of compensation are supposed to be factored into overtime rates. By leaving them out, the suit alleges, the company shortchanged employees who worked more than 40 hours a week. Crawford's lawsuit seeks to represent all hourly, non-exempt employees who worked at Ahlstrom's Wisconsin locations in the past three years. The complaint asks for back pay, overtime, liquidated damages, and other relief for affected workers. It also seeks class action status, which could expand the case's reach to dozens of employees or more. While these are only allegations at this stage, the case is a wake-up call for HR professionals. Timekeeping and wage compliance are not just legal boxes to check -- they're critical to maintaining trust and avoiding costly litigation. The complaint paints a picture of systemic issues that, if proven, could lead to significant penalties and force changes in how Ahlstrom and similar employers handle payroll. Ahlstrom NA Specialty Solutions LLC has not yet responded to the lawsuit, and the court has not made any findings of fact. For now, the case stands as a reminder that even routine payroll practices can land a company in hot water if not managed carefully. The outcome remains to be seen, but HR leaders across the country would be wise to take note. [GN] AIO EVENTS: Faces Mendez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- BRYAN ADRIAN TABAREZ MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AIO EVENTS & MORE CORP d/b/a ALL IN ONE ENTERTAINMENT, and JOHNNY ALBUJA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05839 (E.D.N.Y., October 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an event assistant from in or around July 2022 until in or May 2025, with the exception of approximately December 2022 until in or around March 2023. AIO Events & More Corp., doing business as All In One Entertainment, is an event planning company, located in Ozone Park, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 ALLSTATE INSURANCE: $4MM Settlement Final OK Hearing Set Dec. 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Allstate has agreed to pay a $4,000,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit over the insurer's alleged "double counting" of built-in garage square footage when crafting California homeowners' policies, causing consumers to be overcharged on their premiums. The Allstate class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on September 4, 2025 and covers all California homeowners with Allstate homeowners' insurance policies whose homes, per the insurer's records, have a built-in garage and the policy was included in the company's Project UIN 203019 "corrective action process," and Allstate's internal records show that the square footage of the home reflects an actual or potential double-counting of the garage space. The court-approved website for the Allstate class action settlement can be found at https://www.HilarioSettlement.com/. Allstate settlement class members with valid claims can receive a one-time cash payment proportionally approximate to their potential damages, settlement documents relay. The actual amount to which each eligible class member is entitled will be determined formulaically based on Allstate's data of policy years affected, the location of the insured property, the number and size of garage bays, the collected premium, and any other relevant information. Settlement class members do not need to do anything to receive their share from the class action settlement fund, as they are automatically processed within Allstate's systems. Those who believe they may be class members but did not receive a notice should contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and await further instructions. Per the settlement documents, the deadline to ask to be excluded from the settlement is November 10, 2025. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Allstate settlement at a hearing on December 2, 2025. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Allstate class action lawsuit alleged that the company overestimated the square footage of certain California homes when calculating homeowners' insurance policies by including built-in garages in both "total finished living area" and "total living area" counts. This caused some California homeowners to be charged excessive insurance premiums, the lawsuit claimed. [GN] AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Agrees to Settle Makena Suit for $7.5-Mil. ---------------------------------------------------------------- William C. Gendron of ClaimDEPOT reports that consumers who took, were prescribed, purchased or paid out-of-pocket for Makena (hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection) in the United States between March 8, 2019, and July 11, 2025, may qualify to claim a cash payment from a class action settlement. Amag Pharmaceuticals Inc. agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it made misrepresentations and omissions in its marketing and public statements about Makena, a drug the Food and Drug Administration previously approved to reduce the risk of preterm birth in certain pregnancies. The FDA withdrew approval for Makena in April 2023 after a post-marketing study failed to confirm its effectiveness. Who can file a claim? The settlement class includes all natural persons who: -- Took, were prescribed, purchased, paid for or otherwise incurred out-of-pocket costs for Makena in the United States between March 8, 2019, and July 11, 2025 -- Received Makena (hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection) in any dose or formulation, including single-dose or multidose vials or auto-injector, specifically those sold under National Drug Codes 64011-243-01, 64011-247-02 or 64011-301-03 -- Did not receive a generic or compounded version of hydroxyprogesterone caproate Makena Care Connection records identified Individuals who are likely class members. They should have received a settlement notice. However, those who did not receive a notice may still be eligible if they meet the criteria. There are several categories of class members based on the documentation they can provide: -- Those with proof of both treatment and out-of-pocket payment -- Those with proof of treatment but not out-of-pocket payment -- Those with neither proof but whose information class counsel's records can substantiate -- Those with neither proof nor substantiating records How much is the Makena payout? The settlement administrator will distribute the fund as follows: -- Full reimbursement (with proof of treatment and payment): Class members who submit a valid claim with proof of both treatment and out-of-pocket payment for Makena will receive the full amount of their out-of-pocket costs for each treatment during the class period. This payment is subject to pro rata adjustment if total claims exceed available funds. -- Full reimbursement (substantiated by records): Class members who do not have proof but class counsel's records can reliably substantiate their number of treatments and out-of-pocket costs will also receive the full amount of their out-of-pocket costs per treatment. This payment is subject to pro rata adjustment if total claims exceed available funds. -- $22 per treatment (with proof of treatment only): Class members who provide proof of treatment but not out-of-pocket costs and whose costs counsel's records cannot substantiate will receive $22 per treatment. Those who participated in a government health care program at the time of treatment will receive $4 per treatment. -- $1 per treatment (no proof, no records): Class members who do not provide proof and do not have substantiating records will receive $1 per treatment up to a maximum of $40. If the total amount of valid claims exceeds the net settlement fund (after deducting attorneys' fees, service awards and administration costs), the settlement administrator will reduce each claimant's payment proportionally. Conversely, if total claims are less than the available funds, the settlement administrator may increase payments. How to claim a settlement payout Class members can file the online claim form or download, print, complete and mail the PDF claim form to the settlement administrator. They can also request a claim form by calling 1-833-722-4162 or emailing info@MakenaSettlement.com. The claim deadline is Nov. 10, 2025. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Makena Claim Administrator, 1650 Arch St., Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103 What proof or documentation required to submit a claim? All class members must provide the number of doses they purchase or took; the location (i.e., pharmacy) and approximate date range over which they purchased or took Makena; the amount, if any, they paid out of pocket, i.e., net of any insurance coverage/reimbursement, copay assistance or any other financial assistance; and whether they participated in any government health care program on the date of purchase or administration. The required proof depends on the category: -- To receive full reimbursement (with proof of treatment and payment), class members must provide proof of treatment, such as medical records, insurance records or pharmacy receipts, and proof of out-of-pocket payment, such as medical bills, itemized pharmacy receipts or insurance statements. -- To receive $22 per treatment (with proof of treatment only), class members must provide proof of treatment, such as medical records, insurance records or pharmacy receipts. -- For full reimbursement (substantiated by records) and $1 per treatment (no proof, no records), class members do not need to submit any proof. Payout options -- PayPal -- Venmo -- Zelle -- Virtual prepaid card -- Paper check $7.5 million settlement fund breakdown The $7,500,000 settlement fund includes: -- Settlement administration costs: $190,000 -- Attorneys' fees and expenses: Up to $2,500,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $5,000 each -- Payments to eligible class members: Remainder of the fund Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Nov. 10, 2025 -- Exclusion (opt-out) deadline: Nov. 10, 2025 -- Final approval hearing: Jan. 12, 2026 When is the Makena settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments after it resolves any appeals and the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged Amag Pharmaceuticals Inc. made misrepresentations and/or omissions in marketing materials and public statements about Makena, specifically regarding its effectiveness in reducing the risk of preterm birth. The FDA withdrew approval for Makena in April 2023 after a post-marketing study failed to confirm its efficacy. Amag denied all allegations but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and uncertainty of continued litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $1 to full reimbursement Deadline: November 10, 2025 [GN] ANASTASIA BEVERLY: Moran Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON MORAN, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANASTASIA BEVERLY HILLS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08396 (S.D.N.Y., October 10, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, website, https://www.anastasiabeverlyhills.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, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on October 6, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Anastasia's Favorites Set 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. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Anastasia Beverly Hills operates the website that offers cosmetics and beauty products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Beats Headphones ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Apple Inc. Why: The plaintiff claims Apple's Beats Studio Pro headphones are defective. Where: The Apple Beats class action was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Apple's Beats Studio Pro headphones are defective and fail to work as advertised. Plaintiff Kimberly Feeney filed the class action complaint against Apple on Aug. 20 in California superior court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. Apple removed the lawsuit to California federal court on Oct. 10. According to the Apple class action lawsuit, the company advertises its Beats headphones as offering "optimized voice performance," "loud, crisp, crystal-clear call performance" and professional-grade call clarity. Apple promoted these headphones for seamless voice communication on platforms like Zoom and Microsoft Teams, delivering "rich, immersive sound whether you're listening to music or taking [calls]," the lawsuit says. Apple further claims Beats have "enhanced compatibility with one-touch pairing" and "wirelessly connect to more devices via Bluetooth for extended range and fewer dropouts," the class action claims. However, while Apple charges a premium price for the Beats line, consumers get a subpar experience and cannot use them reliably for their basic advertised purposes, Feeney says. "The Beats headphones contain a pervasive and material defect that causes the built-in microphone to malfunction during routine use, especially during phone and video calls," she alleges. Apple Beats headphones don't work as advertised, lawsuit alleges As a result of the alleged defect, Feeney and similarly situated consumers have suffered financial harm, the lawsuit says. They purchased headphones based on Apple's false promises and paid a price that does not reflect the defective product's actual value, Feeney argues. Consumers were deprived of the benefit of their bargain and are entitled to restitution and damages, she added. Feeney and the proposed class members suffered economic injury as a result of purchasing defective Beats headphones, the lawsuit states. Feeney is looking to represent anyone who purchased Apple Beats Studio Pro series, including the Beats Fit Pro, Beats Solo Pro and Beats Studio 3, from July 9, 2021, to the present. She is suing for breach of warranty and violations of California consumer laws and is seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. Last month, Apple faced a class action lawsuit accusing the company of selling gift cards that were not secure and were easily exploited for fraud, causing consumers to lose money. Feeney is represented by Helen I. Zeldes, Amy C. Johnsgard, Summer Wright and Joshua A. Fields of Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes LLP. [GN] APPLE INC: Loses UK's First App Store Class Action Case ------------------------------------------------------- Rohail Saleem, writing for WCCFTech, reports that Apple appears to be losing court cases centered on its monopolistic hold over the App Store, left, right, and center, with the latest setback coming from the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal. Apple just lost the UK's first class action-style tribunal case, filed on behalf of 20 million iPhone and iPad users in the UK. The British academic, Rachel Kent, filed a case against Apple in January 2025 with the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal. Kent had argued: -- Apple earns exorbitant profits by excluding competition from the distribution of apps and in-app purchases within its App Store. -- The Cupertino giant also imposes restrictive terms on app developers, all the while charging excessive commissions. -- These costs are ultimately borne by the consumers in the UK. Now, the Competition Appeal Tribunal appears to have concurred with Kent's primary argument by ruling against Apple. This means that Apple is now on the hook for around GBP 1.5 billion or around $2 billion, which is the amount sought by Kent as a remedy for Apple's monopolistic behavior. For its part, the Cupertino giant says it would appeal the ruling, arguing that it took a "a flawed view of the thriving and competitive app economy." Interestingly, this was the first case filed in the UK on the pattern of class action lawsuits that are fairly common in the US. Apple is facing concerted legal action in various jurisdictions In the EU, Apple allows users to install third-party app stores on their devices, in compliance with the EU's Digital Markets Act. In the US, Apple was recently compelled by a court in the Epic case to allow access to external payment methods, and to enable the return of Epic's Fortnite app. While Apple has complied with the verdict, it still vows to charge a commission on those payments, prompting the judge in the case to call on the tech giant to cease doing so or face contempt proceedings, and even possible criminal charges. Apple and Epic have returned to court this week, where the Cupertino giant is arguing in an appeals court that the U.S. District Judge went beyond the scope of their 2021 order when they banned Apple from taking any commission on purchases made outside apps, and then punished the company with contempt for failing to comply with an inherently unclear ruling. This situation has created a legal precedent, where consumers in other markets are also asking for similar privileges. For instance, in Australia, Epic recently asked the court to allow its apps to be sideloaded onto Apple devices without any associated commission. Apple's App Store is also now caught in China's regulatory crosshairs following an antitrust complaint, which alleges that Apple maintains a monopoly over app distributions and payment methods in China while allowing off-App Store payments as well as third-party app stores in other markets. [GN] ARHAUS INC: Agrees to Settle Inflated Prices Class Suit for $6MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Arhaus has agreed to pay up to $6 million to settle a class action lawsuit that alleged the furniture and home decor retailer deceptively displayed fake original prices for products online, and advertised items for sale at a steep discount from inflated reference prices that did not always reflect a product's actual prior sale price. The Arhaus class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on August 25, 2025, and covers anyone in California who purchased an Arhaus product from the company's website between April 2, 2020 and September 18, 2024, where the purchased product listed both a current sale price and a referenced second, higher price (with or without a strikethrough), and has not been refunded or credited for their purchase. The court-approved website for the Arhaus class action settlement can be found at https://ArhausSettlement.com/. Arhaus settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form can receive a one-time, pro-rated share of the settlement fund based on their total qualifying purchase amount divided by the total combined purchase amount of all claimants during the relevant time period. For instance, if a class member spent $10,000 on Arhaus products and the total amount spent by all class members with valid claims during the class period was $1,000,000, then the consumer would receive one percent of the net settlement amount. No Arhaus settlement class member will receive a share of the settlement that constitutes more than 50 percent of their total qualifying purchase amount, court documents state. Per settlement documents, class members who submit a valid claim can elect to receive their payment by mail in the form of a check or an Arhaus gift card of equal amount. Those who elect to receive a check will have 120 days to cash their checks after the date of issuance before they become void and expire, the Arhaus settlement website says. To submit an Arhaus claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. Those who believe they may be a class member but did not receive a class action settlement notice should contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and receive their login ID. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF copy of the claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the address listed near the top of the form. Arhaus settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail no later than December 19, 2025. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Arhaus settlement at a hearing on February 19, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Arhaus class action lawsuit alleged that the retailer engaged in deceptive advertising by promoting higher original prices on its products for sale at a discount to convince consumers that they were getting a better deal or greater discount than they actually were. "This practice allegedly misled customers into believing they were receiving substantial discounts on purchases, causing them to buy products they might not have otherwise purchased," settlement documents summarize. [GN] ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL: Alameda Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- TARA ALAMEDA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Tara Alameda, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Association of Social Work Boards, Defendant, Case No. 7:23-cv-6156, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiffs bring this suit against the Defendant for alleged violation of the rights of minority social workers. On Sept. 26, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (FAC), which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Dec. 8, 2023. On Sept. 25, 2024, Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the FAC without prejudice. On Oct. 25, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (SAC), which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Dec. 18, 2024. On Sept. 25, 2025, Judge Karas granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the SAC. The Plaintiff's SAC is dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the case is closed. The appellate case is entitled Alameda v. Association of Social Work Boards, Case No. 25-2531, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 15, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants TARA ALAMEDA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael H. Sussman, Esq. 1 Railroad Avenue, Suite 3 P.O. Box 1005 Goshen, NY 10924 AUSTRALIA: Women Join Sexual Abuse, Discrimination Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Women who allegedly suffered widespread and systemic sexual abuse, harassment, discrimination and victimisation while serving in the Australian defence force are taking part in a class action against the commonwealth. There are four applicants in the class action, whose names are withheld for legal reasons, but any woman subjected to sexual violence, sexual harassment or discrimination while working in the ADF between 12 November 2003 and 25 May 2025 is eligible to join them. The first applicant from the air force was the only woman with eight to 12 men on her training course and one of two women in a building of about 200 people. She alleged comments from her sergeant during her training included "women shouldn't be paid as much as men because they are not as strong" and "women aren't pulling their weight in the air force". She has alleged several sexist and hostile comments along with number of inappropriate conversations, as well as being shown unsolicited pornographic photos. The second applicant enlisted in the navy and has alleged she experienced daily lewd comments while undergoing training, and male colleagues casually touching her uniform in a way that made her uncomfortable. While on duty abroad later in her career, she alleged she was grabbed and kissed by a colleague who forcibly resisted her attempts to separate herself. Gemma, another member of the air force who is not one of the four lead applicants, has alleged she regularly experienced harassment, misogyny and sexism. She was forced to work alongside a colleague whom she had made a complaint against while a military investigation was carried out but was ultimately told there was not enough evidence to go forward with a prosecution. Her mental health deteriorated and the experience affected her career. "[The ADF] are protecting their reputation and not their people," Gemma said. "Change needs to happen to make it safer for victims to speak up. There needs to be more informed support for the victims . . . this isn't a once-off, it is still happening." The class action has been filed by the Australian law firm JGA Saddler, backed by the global litigation funder Omni Bridgeway. The legal case is a demand for action, accountability and real change as sexual violence and discrimination continue to plague female ADF members, the JGA Saddler lawyer Josh Aylward said. "The threat of war often isn't the biggest safety fear for female ADF personnel, it is the threat of sexual violence in their workplace," he said. "They have signed up to defend their country, not to fight off fellow ADF personnel on a daily basis, all while simply trying to do their job." Aylward noted these were not historical cases and some incidents had occurred within the last 12 months. A spokesperson for the defence department said: "Defence acknowledges there is work to be done and that is why the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide which relate to sexual violence are being implemented as a priority. "All defence personnel have a right to be respected and deserve to have a positive workplace experience in the ADF. "There is no place for sexual violence or misconduct in Defence." The defence minister, Richard Marles, was contacted for comment. [GN] BAESMAN GROUP: Install Data Broker Software on Website, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- EKATERINA LOSHKAREVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAESMAN GROUP, INC. and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-09987 (C.D. Cal., October 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Trap and Trace Law. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged installation and use of a data broker software on its website, https://baesman.com/, to secretly collect data about a website visitor's computer, location, and browsing habits. According to the complaint, the Defendant has partnered with registered California data brokers in order to deanonymize and develop clandestine user profiles on otherwise anonymous website visitors. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful surveillance, the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals have been injured. Baesman Group, Inc. is a software provider based in California. [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 Email: rtauler@taulersmith.com eshapiro@taulersmith.com BANK OF NEW YORK: Aids Sex-Trafficking Operation, Doe Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08525 (S.D.N.Y., October 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, negligent failure to exercise reasonable care to prevent physical harm, and negligent failure to exercise reasonable care as a banking institution providing non-routine banking. The case arises from the Defendant's action of participating in and financially benefitting from the widespread and well-publicized sex-trafficking operation of Jeffrey Epstein, a sexual predator, as well as the direct financial benefits it received therefrom. According to the complaint, the Defendant had a plethora of information regarding Epstein's sex trafficking operation but chose profit over protecting the victims. And because the Defendant failed to timely file suspicious activity reports as to any of these transactions, it failed to alert law enforcement as to Epstein's crimes before it was far too late, suit says. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation is a global financial institution, headquartered in New York, New York. [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, Esq. 425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 524-2820 Email: brad@cvlf.com brittany@cvlf.com BAREFOOT DREAMS: Blatt Sues Over Unlawfully Recorded Communications ------------------------------------------------------------------- Juliette Blatt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BAREFOOT DREAMS, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-08791 (Oct. 14, 2025), is brought on behalf of all U.S. residents who accessed and navigated www.barefootdreams.com (the "Website") and whose electronic communications were intercepted or recorded by advertising technology provided by Meta Platforms, Inc. and Attentive Mobile Inc. (collectively "Third Parties"). The Barefoot Dreams collection "features a variety of soft and luxurious blankets and throws, newborn, toddler and kids wear and chic lounge wear and apparel for adults" which it sells and markets through the Website. Despite its promises and representations of privacy, Defendant aids, agrees with, employs, or otherwise enables Third Parties to eavesdrop on communications sent and received by Plaintiff and Class Members on the Website that Defendant owns and operates, including communications that contain personally identifiable information ("PII"). By failing to procure consent before enabling Third Parties to intercept these communications, Defendant violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), the Comprehensive Computer Data and Access and Fraud Act ("CDAFA"), and the California Constitution, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided Facebook with her PII, including her full name, date of birth, phone number, and email address. Barefoot Dreams is "the premier destination for cozy blankets, loungewear and apparel for the whole family."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Phone: (914) 874-0710 Fax: (914) 206-3656 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com BENEFITS NOW: Bid for Class Cert Due March 6, 2026 -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE BUTLER RASHLEY, v. BENEFITS NOW, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-10398-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Terrence G. Berg entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Discovery cutoff: Feb. 6, 2026 Motion for class certification due: March 6, 2026 Motion for individual default March 6, 2026 judgment due: Motion for class default judgment 30 Days after ruling Due: on class certification Final pretrial conference: To be set after ruling on dispositive motions A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O8BjGG at no extra charge.[CC] BESTWAY USA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Pools --------------------------------------------------------- Susan L. Smith, writing for VitalLaw, reports that the woman, individually and on behalf of others who had purchased above-ground swimming pools that were recalled, filed a class action complaint against Bestway requesting a jury trial and bringing five causes of action. A woman, who had purchased an above-ground swimming pool that was later recalled, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Bestway USA, Inc.; Bestway Inflatables & Material Corp.; and Bestway Global Holdings, Inc. (collectively, Bestway). The complaint seeks damages and equitable relief arising from Bestway's allegedly dangerous design and false and misleading representations regarding the safety of its pools and its concealment of a known defect. The class action complaint brings five causes of action: violations of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and California False Advertising Law (FAL); negligence; breach of implied warranty; and unjust enrichment (Holloway v. Bestway USA, Inc., No. 25-cv-12853 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 21, 2025)). Background. Bestway, a subsidiary of Bestway Global Holdings, Inc., a Hong Kong-based company, is a private corporation headquartered in Chandler, Arizona, that develops, manufactures, and sells recreational pools, including above-ground pools, spas, inflatable furniture, air mattresses, water toys, and outdoor play equipment. Bestway pools are widely distributed across the United States through retail and online channels. Bestway maintains control over its product design, manufacturing, and distribution processes, and, thus, it bears responsibility for ensuring the safety of the pools sold to individual consumers and families, the complaint asserts. Around March 4, 2023, the woman purchased Bestway's Steel Pro Above Ground Pool for approximately $427.38 from Amazon. Until the recall, the woman was never informed of any recalls, defects, or potential hazards related to her purchase. On July 21, 2025, she and other consumers of Bestway's pools were notified by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CSPC) of the recall that advised them that the pools posed a serious and undisclosed safety hazard. Recall. On July 21, 2025, the CSPC announced a recall of approximately five million above-ground pools, 48 inches or taller, distributed by Bestway and other manufacturers because the compression straps that are on the outside of the pool's vertical support beams could serve as footholds, allowing children to access the pools and substantially increasing the risk of drowning. The designs of the recalled above-ground pools have resulted in the deaths of at least nine children aged 22 months to three years. The pools recalled by Bestway include the Power Steel, Steel Pro, and the Coleman Power Steel Pool that were sold from 2008 to 2024. The recall notice instructed customers to identify if their above-ground pool was affected by the recall and, once confirmed, they would proceed to a separate registration page to provide the information needed to receive a free repair kit. The repair kit consists of a mere rope that will allegedly substitute for the compression straps, maintaining the pool's structural integrity. All class members are required to drain all water from the pools before completing the repairs. The woman contends that the corrective measures impose considerable burdens on consumers and result in meaningful expenses. Jurisdiction and class action. The complaint states that the court has personal jurisdiction over Bestway because it purposefully availed itself to the law of Illinois and many of the class members reside in the Northern District of Illinois and throughout the state. The complaint also contends that the class may be certified by the court because the Nationwide Class and the California Subclass present particular, common issues and meet the numerosity, commonality, adequacy, predominance, superiority, and manageability grounds applicable to the class as a whole. Causes of action. The class action complaint brings five causes of action against Bestway, contending that the woman and the class are entitled to damages, equitable relief, restitution, and an order for the disgorgement of the funds by which Bestway was unjustly enriched. UCL. The woman contends that Bestway's practices constitute unlawful business practices in violation of the UCL because they violate warranty laws. They are substantially injurious to consumers and constitute fraudulent business practices because Bestway's misrepresentations were likely to deceive reasonable customers, causing the plaintiffs loss of money and their suffering injury-in-fact. FAL. On behalf of the California State Sub-Class, the woman alleges that Bestway violated the FAL because Bestway disseminated statements concerning property or services that are untrue or misleading. Specifically, the advertisements, marketing, acts, and practices of Bestway relating to the safety, manufacture, testing, and oversight of the pools were allegedly untrue, deceptive, and misled consumers acting reasonably. Further, the woman and class were damaged because they would not have purchased Bestway's pools had they known the true facts regarding their safety and defective condition. Negligence. The complaint states that Bestway breached its duty by failing to ensure the safety of the pools, failing to properly design and manufacture them, and failing to properly examine and test the pools prior to sale, thus causing class members harm in that they suffered economic injury and lost the benefit of the bargain related to the purchase price. Breach of implied warranty. The woman contends that the defect caused the pools to be unmerchantable because they cannot perform their essential functions according to what the average purchaser would reasonably expect. Bestway breached the warranty because the pools are not fit for their ordinary purpose and did not remedy the defect within a reasonable time. Unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, Bestway represented that its pools were reliable, merchantable, and in good repair; however, Bestway mispresented, concealed, and omitted material information concerning a defect that caused the pools to fail to conform to the performance, durability, capability, and reliability that it represented. Therefore, the pools were of a substantially lesser quality and value than Bestway represented. The woman and the class members relied on Bestway's representations and advertisements when purchasing their pools and would not have purchased them if they knew of the defect. Thus, the woman and class are entitled to restitution, the complaint maintains. They seek disgorgement of all profits resulting from overpayments made by the woman and the class. The case is No. 25-cv-12853. Attorneys: Michael Robert Reese (Reese LLP) for Leah Holloway. Companies: Bestway USA, Inc.; Bestway Inflatables & Material Corp.; Bestway Global Holdings, Inc. [GN] BETHANY OPERATING: Sorrell Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ AMBER SORRELL, BETH LAKE, and PATRICIA VANHOVEN, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. BETHANY OPERATING CO. LLC and any related entities, Case No. 5:25-cv-01430-AJB-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation as well as related damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. From at least October 2019 and continuing through the present, the Defendant has engaged in a policy and practice of depriving Plaintiffs and other employees of the applicable straight time wages and overtime wages for work they performed as mandated by federal and state law, the suit says. Plaintiff Sorrell is currently a resident of Oneida County, New York, and was employed joint by Defendant Bethany as a Certified Nursing Assistant from 2007 to February 2023. Bethany operates a nursing home and rehabilitation center called Bethany Gardens, located at 800 West Chestnut Street Rome, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frank Gattuso, Esq. GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC The White House 7030 E. Genesee Street Fayetteville, New York 13066 Telephone: (315) 314-8000 Facsimile: (315) 446-7521 E-mail: rfiles@gclawoffice.com fgattuso@gclawoffice.com BLUE CIRCLE: Spero Sues Over Salmon's Undisclosed Color Additive ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID SPERO and ANAS RYADI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BLUE CIRCLE FOODS, LLC d/b/a CHANGING SEAS, and BLUE SEA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-08848 (N.D. Cal., October 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and California's False Advertising Law, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of their Norwegian Atlantic Smoked Salmon. According to the complaint, the Defendants used astaxanthin, a color additive, to the farmed salmon's feed to make it a more palatable pink, but failed to disclose it on the label. The Plaintiffs sustained injuries by purchasing the Defendants' product which was deceptively marketed as containing salmon fillets with a healthy, natural pink coloring when, instead, the Defendants' farm-raised salmon necessarily contained artificial coloring. Blue Circle Foods, LLC, doing business as Changing Seas, is a producer of farmed salmon, with its principal place of business in the District of Columbia. Blue Sea, LLC is a producer of farmed salmon, with its principal place of business in Princeton, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joshua B. Glatt, Esq. Joshua R. Wilner, Esq. Ryan B. Martin, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com jglatt@bursor.com jwilner@bursor.com rmartin@bursor.com BRAG HOUSE: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to House of Doge ----------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Brag House Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: TBH) related to its sale to House of Doge Inc., an affiliate of the Dogecoin Foundation. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, House of Doge will become the majority shareholder of the newly combined company. Is it a fair deal? NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] BRICKELL BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Over "All Natural" Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Michael Dotson is suing Brickell Brands LLC. Why: Dotson claims Brickell misleads consumers by falsely marketing its products as all natural. Where: The Brickell class action lawsuit was filed in California state court. According to a new class action lawsuit, Brickell, a manufacturer of men's body products, misleads consumers by falsely marketing its products as 'all natural'. Plaintiff Michael Dotson's class action lawsuit claims Brickell makes false all-natural claims on a number of its personal care products despite them containing synthetic ingredients. Dotson argues Brickell's alleged misrepresentations caused him and other consumers to pay a price premium for products that were not all-natural. "As a result of Defendant's fraudulent labeling, Plaintiff has been misled into purchasing products that did not provide them with the benefit of the bargain they paid money for, namely that the Products would be 'All Natural,'" the Brickell class action lawsuit states. Brickell class action lawsuit lists numerous synthetic ingredients Dotson claims Brickell's products, which include its Reviving Hyaluronic Acid Serum, Styling Hair Powder, Repairing Vitamin C Serum and Daily Strengthening Shampoo, contain synthetic ingredients, such as sodium PCA, ethylhexylglycerin, sorbitan caprylate and tocopheryl acetate. Dotson argues that Brickell's alleged misrepresentations violate California's False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law. He wants to represent a nationwide class and California subclass of consumers who purchased a Brickell product labeled as all-natural within the past four years. Dotson demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of actual and punitive damages for himself and all class members. Similarly, consumers recently sued Beiersdorf Inc., alleging it falsely advertises its Nivea "Nourish by Nature" and "Naturally Good" products as containing a high proportion of natural ingredients, even though most of the ingredients are synthetic. Dotson is represented by Todd M. Friedman and Adrian R. Bacon of the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman P.C. The Brickell class action lawsuit is Dotson v. Brickell Brands LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-08385, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. [GN] BSMITH PROTECTION: Parente Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BSmith Protection Services Inc., et al. The case is styled as Daniel Patrick Parente, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BSmith Protection Services Inc., Brandon Smith, DOES 1 through 100, Case No. VCU327032 (Cal. Super. Ct., Tulare Cty., Oct. 15, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment for Unlimited-Visalia." BSmith Protection Services Inc. offer security guards at private locations and close protection.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Rachmann, Esq. 23901 Calabasas Rd., Ste. 1084 Calabasas, CA 91302-3392 Email: mike@frontierlawcenter.com BUILT BRANDS: Moran Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ WASHINGTON MORAN, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff V. BUILT BRANDS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08496 (S.D.N.Y., October 15, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://built.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, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on October 6, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Mint Chip Puff protein packed snack 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. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, the complaint asserts. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Built Brands, LLC operates the website that offers protein-packed snacks and bars.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal C&S WHOLESALE: Appeals Remand Order in Tercero Suit to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ C&S WHOLESALE GROCERS, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Teniah Tercero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-0953, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The suit, which was removed from the Sacramento County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, is brought against the Defendants for alleged labor claims. On Mar. 26, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand, which Judge Dena M. Coggins granted on Oct. 3, 2025. The Court finds that none of the Defendants' asserted bases for subject matter jurisdiction exist. Accordingly, this case is remanded to Sacramento County Superior Court. The appellate case is entitled Tercero v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, LLC, et al., Case No. 25-6484, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 15, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent TENIAH TERCERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Zachary Crosner, Esq. Jamie K. Serb, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 CALIFORNIA: Judge Certifies Suit Over School Gender Policies ------------------------------------------------------------ City News Service reports that a San Diego federal judge has certified a class action lawsuit brought by two Escondido teachers who sued over school district policies governing what information can be shared with parents of transgender and gender-nonconforming students. The lawsuit initially filed on behalf of Rincon Middle School teachers Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West sought to block enforcement of Escondido Union School District policies requiring them to use pronouns or gender-specific names requested by students, while keeping that information private from others, including the students' parents. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez previously issued a preliminary injunction barring the district from enforcing the policies. In an order issued in October, Benitez ruled that the lawsuit could cover a class that includes state public education employees and parents/guardians who object to the policies, as well as educators or parents/guardians who submit exemption requests to opt out of complying with the policies or have the policies applied to them. The ruling means a Nov. 17 summary judgment hearing scheduled in the case would have statewide implications if Benitez rules such policies are unconstitutional. State attorneys argued there is no statewide policy of that kind and each of the more than 1,000 school districts in California sets its own policies. Benitez wrote that "While there are many local school districts, they all must march to the beat of the state defendants' drums." Paul Jonna, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiff is in the case, said in a statement, "Judge Benitez has recognized that California's gender secrecy policies affect millions of families and teachers, and that everyone impacted deserves to have the fundamental constitutional issues squarely resolved. With this class action certified, every affected parent and teacher in California now has a voice in court." [GN] CANADA: Indian Boarding Homes Suit Extended to 365 Days for Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ If you have received a notification for a claim informing you that "The Government of Canada has provided information suggesting that the Class Members were in a placement outside of the Indian Boarding Homes Program during some of the years submitted on the claim form," you are entitled to request a copy of the information Canada has provided to the Claims Administrator by emailing: indianboardinghomes-foyersfamiliauxindiens@rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca The deadline for submitting additional information has been extended from 120 days to 365 days following receipt of the notification. This decision was made with the claimant in mind, ensuring they have ample time to gather and prepare the necessary documentation thoroughly and without undue pressure. Please ensure all required information is submitted within the revised timeframe and in accordance with the submission guidelines as set out in the notification. For more details, please visit the Indian Boarding Homes Class Action website: https://boardinghomesclassaction.com/. CANADA: OCA Upholds Class Certification on Immigration Detainees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Mach, writing for Law Times, reports that the Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld the certification of a class action lawsuit that immigration detainees brought against the federal government, paving the way for the plaintiffs to pursue claims that the Canada Border Services Agency violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it incarcerated them in provincial prisons. The plaintiffs argued that it is unlawful to hold any immigration detainee in any provincial prison, since prisons are intended to punish crime. The plaintiffs also alleged that immigration detainees held in prisons are treated as though they are criminal inmates. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified Richard v. Canada (Attorney General) last year. The government appealed that decision to the OCA, arguing that the court was wrong to find that the plaintiffs' claims -- which alleged negligence and multiple breaches of the Charter -- were not doomed to fail. The government also took issue with the court's finding that the class members' claims raised common issues. However, the OCA dismissed the government's appeal of the certification on Wednesday, ruling that the lower court's rationale for certifying the class was sound. "The concept that because you're an immigrant to Canada, you're held in a jail for administrative purposes -- I think that's an extraordinary practice and it presents itself as an extraordinary legal problem," Jonathan Foreman, a partner at Foreman & Company who was part of the team that represented the class, told Law Times on Thursday. "We have non-citizen immigrants who are placed in jail for a non-criminal purpose as a routine matter. And we say that's discriminatory on the basis that these are non-citizens because citizens of Canada could never be treated this way," Foreman adds. "There's no scenario in which a Canadian ends up in jail unless [they've been] charged with a criminal offence or they're held pending an investigation of the placement of a criminal charge." A CBSA spokesperson said the agency is reviewing Wednesday's decision and will not provide further comment while litigation is ongoing. Between May 2016 and July 2023, the Canada Border Services Agency placed 8,360 immigration detainees in 87 provincial and territorial prisons instead of immigration holding centers. The CBSA had entered into agreements with every Canadian province and territory except Nunavut to incarcerate the detainees at a daily rate, and the detainees were detained under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Two detainees, Tyron Richard and Alexis Garcia Paez, filed a motion with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to certify a class action against the government. The proposed class would comprise the incarcerated detainees. In its ruling approving the motion, the court noted that the detainees faced the same conditions as criminal inmates, "including co-mingling with violent offenders, use of restraints such as shackles and handcuffs, strip searches, and severe restrictions on contact and movement." The court added that detainees housed at one of the CBSA's three immigration holding centers in Toronto, Surrey, British Columbia, and Laval, Quebec did not encounter these conditions. The court did not rule on the case's merits, but determined that a class proceeding was appropriate to address the plaintiffs' claims. The OCA sided with the lower court. The plaintiffs argued that the CBSA had violated ss. 7, 9, 12, and 15 of the Charter, which respectively guarantee the life, liberty and security of the person, the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned, freedom from cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, and equality under the law. The appellate court disagreed with the government's argument that these claims are bound to fail. Part of that argument was that the lower court mischaracterized detention in a prison as always "penal" and "punitive," which the government said clouded the lower court's analysis. However, the OCA said the lower court "was well aware that the purpose of immigration detention is administrative and not punitive." The OCA added that the lower court also "clearly understood the nuances of the parties' respective positions," including the government's position that "the physical conditions in provincial prisons, on balance, align with the administrative nature of immigration detention." The OCA also tossed out the government's arguments that the plaintiffs could not sustain their negligence claim, or that the proposed class did not share common issues -- one requirement for a lawsuit to proceed as a class action. The government had argued that a class action was not the best way to proceed with the dispute, since resolving the common issues proposed in the lawsuit required individualized attention paid to different plaintiffs. This is because immigration detainees are placed into provincial prisons for different reasons, and detainees in other prisons face different conditions. The lower court disagreed. The court found that the individualized circumstances of each detainee in the class were irrelevant, given the plaintiffs' allegation that Canada cannot ever incarcerate immigration detainees. The OCA sided with the lower court, finding no reason to disturb the lower court's ruling. Foreman, whose co-counsel on the case included Cory Wanless and Subodh Bharati, noted that in the lower court's certification ruling, the court said the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act requires the CBSA to comply with "international human rights instruments to which Canada is a signatory." Canada is a party to several international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. "Canada has made commitments through international human rights treaties that when Canada receives immigrants and it has to detain them, it will not detain them in a way that is punitive," Foreman says, adding, "using a jail where immigrants are held alongside criminal populations -- we allege that has a punitive character." He adds that he believes the issues in the case resonate beyond the class members. "By comparison, we look at what's happening in the United States right now with respect to how the immigration regime is being handled there," Foreman says, referring to the more aggressive approach to immigration in the US. "In a way, what this action does is it says that Canada has a way that it has committed itself to behave. And this action seeks to enforce that commitment." [GN] CANNON CORP: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $537,500 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that The Cannon Corporation has agreed to pay a $537,500 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit over a January 2023 data breach. The Cannon class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on August 8, 2025, and covers over 13,000 individuals whose personal information may have been compromised during the early 2023 data breach, including those who were notified about the incident by CannonDesign. The court-approved website for the Cannon class action settlement can be found at https://www.CannonSettlement.com/. Cannon settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. All eligible class members can receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment of approximately $40, depending on the total number of valid claims submitted. Further, class members who submit a valid claim can also receive two years of free, three-bureau credit monitoring services from CyEx. Additionally, those who submit proof of documented out-of-pocket expenses related to the data breach, including losses related to identity theft, professional fees, and costs associated with credit repair services, may receive an additional one-time cash payment of up to $10,000, the settlement website shares. The settlement documents add that Cannon settlement class members can elect to receive any/all payments via check or electronic payment. Those who submit a valid claim will have 90 days to cash their reimbursement funds after the dates of issuance before they expire, court documents state. To submit a Cannon settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. Those who believe they may be a class member but did not receive a class action settlement notice should contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and receive their login ID. Alternatively, a class member can download a PDF copy of the claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the address listed near the bottom of the form. Cannon settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by November 25, 2025. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Cannon settlement at a hearing on December 15, 2025. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The CannonDesign class action lawsuit alleged that the New York architecture firm failed to protect the private information of over 13,000 active and former Cannon employees during a targeted cyberattack in January 2023. Per the suit, the data accessed during the breach included, but was not limited to names, dates of birth, contact information, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, state identification numbers, and passport numbers of Cannon employees and their dependents. [GN] CARTICA ACQUISITION: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Nidar ---------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating -- Cartica Acquisition Corp. (OTCMKTS: CRTAF) related to its merger with Nidar Infrastructure Ltd., in which the pre-transaction equity value of Nidar implied by the proposed transaction's terms is approximately $2.75 billion. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/cartica-acquisition-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Lifeloc Technologies, Inc. (OTCMKTS: LCTC) related to its merger with Electronic Systems Technology, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, each outstanding share of common stock of Electronic Systems will be converted into the right to receive shares of common stock of Lifeloc pursuant to an exchange ratio. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/lifeloc-technologies-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Voyager Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: VACH) related to its merger with Veraxa Biotech AG. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, each Voyager Class A and B ordinary share will be cancelled and exchanged for one Class A ordinary share in the combined company. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/voyager-acquisition-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Eastern Michigan Financial Corporation (OTCMKTS: EFIN) related to its merger with Mercantile Bank Corporation. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, each outstanding share of Eastern Michigan common stock will be converted into the right to receive $32.32 in cash and 0.7116 shares of Mercantile common stock. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/eastern-michigan-financial-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] CNB BANK: M&S Investigates Proposed Sale to HBT Financial --------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating CNB Bank Shares, Inc. (OTCMKTS: CNBN) related to its sale to HBT Financial, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, CNB shareholders will receive either (i) 1.0434 shares of HBT common stock, (ii) $27.73 in cash per share, or (iii) a combination of cash and shares of HBT common stock. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/cnb-bank-shares-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] CONDUENT BUSINESS: Bordelon Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Info --------------------------------------------------------------- Peggy Bordelon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-16666 (D.N.J., Oct. 15, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to safeguard the names ("Personally Identifiable Information" and treatment cost information, treatment date information, and health insurance numbers ("Protected Health Information") (together, "Private Information") of Plaintiff and Class members which resulted in unauthorized access to its information systems from October 21, 2024 to January 13, 2025, and the compromised and unauthorized disclosure of that Private Information, causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class (defined below) members. On January 13, 2025, Conduent detected unusual activity in its computer systems and ultimately determined that an unauthorized third party accessed its network and obtained certain files from its systems from October 21, 2024 to January 13, 2025. ("Data Breach") As a result of the Data Breach, which the Defendant failed to prevent, the Private Information of the Plaintiff and the proposed Class members, were stolen, including their names, treatment cost information, treatment date information, and health insurance numbers. The Defendant's investigation concluded that the Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and other individuals' information. The Defendant's failure to safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class members' highly sensitive Private Information as exposed and unauthorizedly disclosed in the Data Breach violates its common law duty, New Jersey law, and the Defendant's implied contract with Plaintiff and Class members to safeguard their Private Information. The Plaintiff and Class members now face a lifetime risk of identity theft due to the nature of the information lost, which they cannot change, and which cannot be made private again, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided their Private Information to the Defendant. Conduent Business Services, LLC provides digital business solutions and services to clients across the commercial, government, and transportation sectors, with its principle place of business in Florham Park, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com CONGREGATION TIFERETH ISRAEL: Schaffer Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Congregation Tifereth Israel, et al. The case is styled as Lisa Kalb Schaffer, Marisa Ryan, Francis Dubois, Perry Schaffer, Mark Solomon, Marsha Lipsitz, Julie Levi, Richard Blau, Susan Schrott, Jonathan Schrott, Leah Friedman, Paul Nadel, Nathan Graf, Rabbi Gadi Capela, Paul Jeselsohn, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated members of Congregation Tifereth Israel v. Congregation Tifereth Israel; Sara Bloom individually and in her official capacity as President of the Board of Trustees; Charles Simon; Lewis Teperman; Demel Caren; Nancy Torchio; Elaine Goldman; Elizabeth Adams, individually and in their official capacities as officers of the Board of Trustees of Congregation Tifereth Israel; Case No. Index not Assigned (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Oct. 16, 2025). The case type is stated as "Special Proceedings - CPLR Article 78." Congregation Tifereth Israel -- https://ctionline.org/ -- is the oldest continuously operating Jewish congregation on Long Island.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barry Mallin, Esq. BARRY MALLIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 132 Nassau Street New York, NY 10038 COOS COUNTY FAMILY: Delisle Sues Over Failure to Secure Information ------------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Delisle, and Anthony Delisle, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. COOS COUNTY FAMILY HEALTH SERVICES, Case 1:25-cv-00403-SM-TSM (D.N.H., Oct. 14, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard personally identifiable information and personal health information ("Private Information") that was entrusted to the Defendant. On July 9, 2025, the Defendant experienced a cyberattack of its computer network. This cyberattack resulted in the breach and/or compromise of certain files containing the sensitive personal data of Plaintiffs and at least 40,183 other individuals, including but not necessarily limited to names; dates of birth, contact information; Social Security Numbers; medical information numbers; and medical information (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant, as a substantial business, had the resources to take seriously the obligation to protect Private Information. However, the Defendant failed to invest the resources necessary to protect the Private Information of Plaintiffs and Class members. The actions of the Defendant related to this Data Breach are unconscionable. The Defendant failed to implement practices and systems to mitigate against the risks posed by the Defendant's negligent (if not reckless) IT practices. As a result of these failures, Plaintiffs and Class members face a litany of harms that accompany data breaches of this magnitude and severity, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs and Class members provided their Private Information to Coos County. Coos County is a healthcare provider operating in New Hampshire.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Chevalier, Esq. CHEVALIER LEGAL SERVICES, PLLC 2 Whitney Road, Suite 11 Concord, NH 03301 Phone: (603) 748-2587 Email: Tim@ChevalierLegal.com - and - Israel David, Esq. Adam. M. Harris, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 350-8850 Email: israel.david@davidllc.com adam.harris@davidllc.com - and - Mark A. Cianci, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 399 Boylston Street, Floor 6, Suite 23 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 295-7771 Email: mark.cianci@davidllc.com CORBAN ONESOURCE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Maryland Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MERCEDE MARYLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CORBAN ONESOURCE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-02850 (M.D. Fla., October 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on October 3, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Corban OneSource LLC is a provider of human resources (HR) services, headquartered in Clearwater, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com COUPANG INC: New York Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT PENSION FUND, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled New York City Fire Department Pension Fund, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Coupang, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-7309, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In this putative class action, lead Plaintiffs, the New York City Public Pension Funds, allege that Coupang, its founder, executives, and board members, and the underwriters of the initial public offering (IPO) are liable under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act for various statements and omissions of Coupang and its executives regarding Coupang's business practices during and after the IPO. On May 24, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on July 28, 2023. On Sept. 10, 2025, Judge Vernon S. Broderick entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs' amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. Accordingly, the case is closed. The appellate case is entitled The New York City Fire Department Pension Fund v. Coupang, Inc., Case No. 25-2536, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 15, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants NEW YORK CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT PENSION FUND, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Defendants-Appellees COUPANG, INC., et al. are represented by: Daniel Craig Lewis, Esq. ALLEN OVERY SHEARMAN STERLING US LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 COVE DRINKS: Sicairos Sues Over Probiotic Sodas' Misleading Labels ------------------------------------------------------------------ CLAUDIA SICAIROS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COVE DRINKS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-09951 (C.D. Cal., October 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied warranty. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Cove probiotic sodas. According to the complaint, the Defendant's sodas are misbranded and falsely advertised because they feature label claims falsely implying or stating that they are healthy and conducive to good health and physical well-being, and contain no artificial sweeteners. In reality, the sodas all contain 10 grams of erythritol, an artificial sweetener. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the sodas or would have paid less for them. Cove Drinks, Inc. is a manufacturer of beverage products, with its principal place of business in Dover, Delaware. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Telephone: (858) 414-7465 Facsimile: (858) 300-5137 Email: legal@cweller.com CUSTOM BUILDING PRODUCTS: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Custom Building Products, LLC. The case is styled as Luis Guillermo Ramos Garcia, Individually and on Behalf of all others similarly situated v. Custom Building Products, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0015157 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Oct. 14, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Custom Building Products -- https://www.custombuildingproducts.com/ -- is a manufactures flooring preparation products and tile and stone installation systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com CVS CAREMARK: Hamburger Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martin Hamburger, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, v. CVS Caremark and Group Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc., d/b/a CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, Case No. 1:25-cv-03000-TNM (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending his deadline to move for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Plaintiff filed the instant action on Sept. 4, 2025. The Plaintiff alleges a putative class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. CareFirst is a health insurance provider. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wtd85f at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anna P. Prakash, Esq. Brock J. Specht, Esq. Patricia C. Dana, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 S. 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 E-mail: aprakash@nka.com bspecht@nka.com pdana@nka.com - and - Robert Baldwin III, Esq. VIRTUE LAW GROUP 1250 Connecticut Ave., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (916) 779-9215 E-mail: robert@virtuelawgroup.com DARREN W. WOODS: HPORS Sues Over Fiduciary Breach ------------------------------------------------- City of Hollywood Police Officers' Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated shareholders of EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION v. DARREN W. WOODS, MICHAEL J. ANGELAKIS, ANGELA F. BRALY, MARIA S. DREYFUS, JOHN D. HARRIS II, KAISA H. HIETALA, JOSEPH L. HOOLEY, STEVEN A. KANDARIAN, ALEXANDER A. KARSNER, LAWRENCE W. KELLNER, DINA POWELL MCCORMICK, JEFFREY W. UBBEN, and EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, Case No. 3:25-cv-16633 (D.N.J., Oct. 14, 2025), is brought against the members (the "Director Defendants") of the Board of Directors (the "Board") of Exxon Mobil Corporation (collectively with the Director Defendants, "Defendants") for breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with the adoption of a Retail Voting Program ("RVP") that violates federal law, unlawfully impairs the voting rights of Exxon's public shareholders, and constitutes an unlawful entrenchment device meant to perpetuate Defendants' control over the Company. On September 15, 2025, Exxon announced that it would commence a new program that would ask the Company's retail investor shareholders to join a new "Retail Voting Program" (the "RVP") under which shareholders' shares would be voted automatically in alignment with the Board's recommendations. The Board's adoption of the RVP is just the latest move in the Company's efforts to quash voices of shareholders who have not uniformly supported the Board's decisions. By attempting to weaponize a largely disengaged body of retail shareholders, however, the RVP affirmatively violates federal law, and constitutes both an unlawful entrenchment device and a breach of fiduciary duty under New Jersey law. On September 17, 2025, Exxon filed a proxy solicitation on Schedule 14A specifically designated as "Soliciting Material" (the "Solicitation"). the Solicitation violates nearly every substantive requirement for proxy solicitations. By authorizing the RVP in violation of federal law, the Director Defendants have unlawfully impaired the voting rights not only of Exxon's shareholders who opt-in to the program based on inadequate disclosures, but also of Exxon's shareholders who either are not eligible or choose not to opt-in, but whose votes would be diluted through the votes of illegally solicited proxies. By unlawfully impairing the voting franchise of Exxon's public shareholders, the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been an Exxon shareholder. Darren W. Woods is the Company's CEO and Executive Chair.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 50 Challenger Road Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Phone: (973) 639-9100 Fax: (973) 584-9393 Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com DAVE & BUSTER'S: Kent Sues Over Data Disclosure to Third Parties ---------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY KENT and MARIA SALINAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DAVE & BUSTER'S ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-08937 (N.D. Cal., October 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, wiretapping and use of a pen register in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, common law fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged action of causing third-party cookies and corresponding data to be stored on consumers' devices and/or transmitted to third parties when they visit the Defendant's website despite consumers' clear declination of such third-party cookies. According to the complaint, these third-party cookies permitted the third parties to track and collect data in real time regarding website visitors' behaviors and communications. The Plaintiffs and Class members have been damaged by the Defendant's invasion of their privacy and are entitled to just compensation, including monetary damages. Dave & Buster's Entertainment, Inc. is a restaurant and entertainment company, with its headquarters in Dallas, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Todd Kennedy, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 Email: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com todd@gutridesafier.com DELUX PUBLIC CHARTER: Kim Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Samuel Kim, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Delux Public Charter, LLC d/b/a JSX Air, Case No. 25STCV25112 was removed from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 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-09840 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Delux Public Charter, LLC doing business as JetSuiteX, Inc. (commonly known as JSX) -- https://www.jsx.com/ -- is an American air carrier in the United States and Mexico that describes itself as a "hop-on jet service" that operates point-to-point flights.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Shawn R. Obi, Esq. WINSTON AND STRAWN LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Suite 3800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 615-1700 Fax: (213) 615-1750 Email: sobi@winston.com DICK'S SPORTING: Magallanez Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN MAGALLANEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 233872715 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 11th Jud. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., October 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending unwanted telemarketing communications to the cellular phone numbers of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products or services without obtaining prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's action, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered harm. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. is a sporting goods company, headquartered in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: mitchell@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com DISCORD INC: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, Zou Says ------------------------------------------------------------- HENRY ZOU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DISCORD, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-08826-SK (N.D. Nev., October 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and personal health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on or no later than September 20. 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Discord, Inc. is a messaging and social media platform company, headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (916) 823-6955 Facsimile: (206) 441-8711 Email: anderson@emeryreddy.com gregory@emeryreddy.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com DONALD TRUMP: Bid for Class Certification Tossed w/o Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUBIN YOUNG, et al., v. HON. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-23025-MFE (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein entered an omnibus order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' amended motion for constitutional review, protection of indigenous American birthright, and emergency declaratory relief, is denied without prejudice; 2. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 is denied without prejudice; 3. The Plaintiffs' motion for constitutional review, protection of indigenous American birthright, and emergency declaratory relief is denied without prejudice; 4. The Plaintiffs' motion for historical relief, compensation, and acknowledgement of injustices is denied without prejudice; 5. The Defendant Levine Cava's motion to quash service is granted; 6. The Plaintiffs' motion to compel entry of default and strike motion to quash is denied; 7. The Defendants DeSantis and Uthmeier's motion to set aside clerk's default is granted; 8. The Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the Defendants' motion to set aside clerk's default is denied; 9. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from Clerk's error and to consider late filing is denied; 10. Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Defendant Levine Cava's Motion to Quash is denied; and 11. Plaintiffs' Request for Clerk's Entry of Default against Defendants Trump, Turner, and Bondi, is granted so the Clerk of Court is Directed To Enter A Clerk's Default against the Defendants Trump, Turner, and Bondi; and 12. Plaintiffs' Motion for Clerk's Entry of Default and Default Judgment against Defendants Trump, Bondi, and Turner, is denied without prejudice. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cvUCoE at no extra charge.[CC] DR PIZZA: Gifford Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 10th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHANNON GIFFORD is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Shannon Gifford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dr Pizza, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-CV-00707-TS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On Feb. 24, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge Ted Stewart granted on Sept. 17, 2025. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs fail to set forth specific facts that would be admissible from which a rational trier of fact could find in favor of them. The appellate case is entitled Gifford v. Dr Pizza, et al., Case No. 25-4131, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on October 15, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant SHANNON GIFFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Matthew Ryan McCarley, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE 11300 North Central Expressway, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75243 Defendants-Appellees DR PIZZA, INC., et al. are represented by: Kimberly Hunsinger, Esq. 12764 Pony Express Road, Suite 300 Draper, UT 84020 - and - Steve Sumsion, Esq. SUMSION BUSINESS LAW 1800 Novell Place Provo, UT 84604 Telephone: (801) 375-2830 DUNHUANG BOSTON: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Chefs, Liao Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHIHAI LIAO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DUNHUANG BOSTON LLC D/B/A LAN FEAST, PENG JIA, and LIFENG HUANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-13045 (D. Mass., October 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and untimely payment of wages in violation of Massachusetts Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a chef from November 3, 2024, to August 19, 2025. Dunhuang Boston LLC, doing business as Lan Feast, is a restaurant owner and operator based in Brookline, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Fogelman, Esq. FOGELMAN LAW 7 Wells Avenue, Suite 23 Newton, MA 02459 Telephone: (617) 559-0201 Email: mjf@fogelmanlawfirm.com - and - Yubo Li, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Email: yli@hanglaw.com EASTERN GROUP: Hawk Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jay Hawk, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. EASTERN GROUP OF GAINESVILLE, INC., d/b/a YAMATO JAPANESE RESTAURANT 1, Case No. 1:25-cv-00325-RH-MJF (N.D. Fla., Oct. 14, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of unpaid minimum wages and overtime pay. The Defendant, here, violated the FLSA and Fla. Const. Art. X § 24 by illegally retaining or distributing tips that should have been distributed to/retained by Plaintiff and similarly situated servers. As a result of these improper common policies and practices, Defendant illegally took a tip credit under federal and state law and must repay the tip credit to Plaintiff and the Putative Class/Collective Members. Additionally, because tips are the sole property of the employee Defendant must also repay the illegally withheld tips to Plaintiff and all Putative Class/Collective Members, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant as a server in Gainesville, Alachua County. The Defendant is a Florida profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Avenue, 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (407) 420-1414 Fax: (407) 245-3383 Email: kimd@forthepeople.com EMERALD LABS: Lopez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ VICTOR LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EMERALD LABS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08398 (S.D.N.Y., October 10, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, website, https://store.emeraldlabs.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, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on July 21, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Vitamins from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff 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. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. Emerald Labs, Inc. operates the website that offers supplements and vitamins.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, 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 ENDURA HEALTHCARE: Bubble Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sharie Bubble, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. ENDURA HEALTHCARE, LLC, PIKES PEAK HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03225 (D. Colo., Oct. 14, 2025), is brought challenging policies and practices of Defendants of failing to pay overtime wages which violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Colorado Wage Claim Act, ("CWCA") and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards ("COMPS"). The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees regularly worked 40 or more hours in one or more workweek(s). The Defendants failed to accurately record and compensate Plaintiff and those similarly situated employees for all time worked, including time worked during interrupted unpaid meal breaks. There was no administrative difficulty recording the time that Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees spent performing the otherwise unpaid compensable work. As a result, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated employees for all hours worked, including overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an hourly Certified Nursing Assistant. Ensign Group is a Delaware corporation that owns and operates skilled nursing, assisted living, rehabilitation, post-acute and care facilities through its affiliates and subsidiaries nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq. TITTLE & PERLMUTER 4106 Bridge Ave. Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: 216-308-1522 Fax: 888-604-9299 Email: scott@tittlelawfirm.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Phone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 E. 9th St, Suite 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com ENDURANCE WARRANTY: Rodriguez Balks at Unsolicited E-mail Ads ------------------------------------------------------------- REBEKA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENDURANCE WARRANTY SERVICES, L.L.C., an Illinois entity, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02694-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal., October 10, 2025) arises from the Defendant's conduct of sending unsolicited commercial e-mail at Plaintiff's e-mail address in violation of the California Business & Professions Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff never gave direct consent to receive commercial e-mail advertisements from Defendant or its marketing agents. The Defendant has not established and implemented, with due care, practices and procedures reasonably designed to effectively prevent unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisements that are in violation of the state law, says the suit. The Plaintiff asserts that she suffered concrete, particularized harm as a result of Defendant's conduct. Endurance Warranty Services, LLC is an auto insurance agency in Northbrook, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com ENTEGRIS INC: Wood Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as STANTON WOOD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff v. ENTEGRIS, INC.; a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25LC-0836, was removed from the San Luis Obispo Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on October 16, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-09911 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts 10 causes of action for (1) failure to provide meal periods; (2) failure to provide rest periods; (3) failure to pay all wages; (4) knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; (5) failure to timely pay wages due at termination; (6) failure to timely pay employees; (7) failure to reimburse for business expenses; (8) failure to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked; (9) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; and (10) penalties for claims brought pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act. Entegris, Inc. is a supplier of materials for the semiconductor and other high-tech industries.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Brian D. Berry, Esq. Sarah Zenewicz, Esq. Monica N. Ratajczak, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Telephone: +1-415-442-1000 Facsimile: +1-415-442-1001 E-mail: brian.berry@morganlewis.com sarah.zenewicz@morganlewis.com monica.ratajczak@morganlewis.com ERY VESSEL: Moran Sues Over Online Store's Website Access Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------------ WASHINGTON MORAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ERY VESSEL LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08586 (S.D.N.Y., October 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, and New York State General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.vesselnyc.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text equivalent, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. ERY Vessel LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal EVERGY INC: 401(k) Plan Member Class Wins Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERICK L. DOLL, et al., v. EVERGY, INC., et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-00043-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. (1) The Court certifies the following class under Rule 23(b)(1): "All participants and beneficiaries of the Evergy, Inc. 401(k) Plan who invested in any of the American Century Target Date Funds (excluding the Defendants or any participant/beneficiary who is a fiduciary to the Plan) during the Class Period." (2) The Court appoints the named Plaintiffs as class representatives. (3) The Court appoints Schneider Wallace and Walcheske & Luzi as class counsel. (4) Within 21 days from the date of this Order, the parties shall file a joint proposed amended scheduling order. The Plaintiffs have met the requirements under Rule 23(b)(1). The case arises from losses incurred by the Evergy, Inc. 401(k) defined-contribution pension savings plan (the "Plan") which is governed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Evergy is a public utility holding company that operates primarily through its subsidiaries to provide electricity services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9wRj0I at no extra charge.[CC] EXCLUSIVE FURNITURE: Hampton Files ADA Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Exclusive Furniture, L.P. The case is styled as Phyllis Hampton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Exclusive Furniture, L.P., Case No. 1:25-cv-12524 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 14, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Exclusive Furniture -- https://exclusivefurniture.com/ -- is a Houston-based furniture store offering a wide range of quality home furnishings, including sofas, beds, and dining sets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Baldemar Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing New York, NY 11367 Phone: (718) 554-0237 Email: dreyes@ealg.law FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE: Gensoli Suit Transferred to D. Vermont ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Gerald Gensoli, and others similarly situated v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-01698-RJC was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont on Oct. 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00829-mkl to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. -- https://www.fedex.com/en-us/ -- also known simply as FedEx Ground, is an American ground package delivery company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy E. Abay, Esq. Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 30 Washington Avenue, Suite D-3 Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Phone: (856) 509-5346 Fax: (617) 994-5801 Email: sliss@llrlaw.com - and - Krysten L. Connon, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 994-5800 The Defendant is represented by: Andrew H. Myers, Esq. Celyn W. Giefer, Esq. David Schaller, Esq. Frederick R. Yarger, Esq. Iva Velickovie, Esq. Jessica E. Eller, Esq. Jessica G. Scott, Esq. Juan S. Ramirez, Esq. Meghan Darby, Esq. Natalie R. Colao, Esq. Thomas Dee, Esq. WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP 370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4500 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 244-1800 Fax: (303) 244-1879 - and - Joseph P. McHugh, Esq. Shanicka Kennedy, Esq. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 1000 Fedex Drive Moon Township, PA 15108 Phone: (412) 859-5917 FEDEX GROUND: Claiborne Suit Transferred to M.D. North Carolina --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Horace Claiborne, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Fedex Ground, Case No. 2:18CV1698 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District North Carolina on Oct. 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00933 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. -- https://www.fedex.com/en-us/ --also known simply as FedEx Ground, is an American ground package delivery company headquartered in Moon Township, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Pittsburgh.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Gonzales, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES 2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201 Fort Collins, CO 80528 Phone: (970) 214-0562 - and - Harold Lichten, Esq. Krysten Leigh Connon, Esq. Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 994-5800 - and - Jeremy Edward Abay, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 30 Washington Avenue, Suite D-3 Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Phone: (856) 509-5346 - and - Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. Peter Winebrake, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Rd., Ste. 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: (215) 884-2491 Fax: (215) 884-2492 Email: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrew H. Myers, Esq. Celyn W. Giefer, Esq. David Schaller, Esq. Frederick R. Yarger, Esq. Iva Velickovic, Esq. Jessica Elyse Eller, Esq. Jessica Goneau Scott, Esq. Juan S. Ramirez, Esq. Meghan Darby, Esq. Natalie R. Colao, Esq. Thomas Dec, Esq. WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP 370 17th Street, Suite 4500 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 244-1879 - and - Joseph P. Mchugh, Esq. Shanicka Kennedy, Esq. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 1000 Fedex Drive Moon Township, PA 15108 Phone: (412) 859-5917 FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Williams Class Suit Over Warranty Extensions ----------------------------------------------------------------- LEIGHTON WILLIAMS, MARK ABIAD, DOREEN BIASI, ASHLEY BIASI, WALTER MISTERKA, JR., ANTHONY CRISP, JASON MOORE, DAVID SELF, MATTHEW BEAGHLEY, and YOLANDA BARRERA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES (n/k/a FCA US, LLC), Case No. 2:25-cv-13237 (E.D. Mich., October 14, 2025) is class action complaint brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers and businesses who obtained vehicle warranties from Defendant FCA for FCA-branded vehicles: Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, FIAT, and Alfa Romeo. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of warranty holders who obtained a vehicle warranty from Defendant FCA in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, who overpaid for such vehicle warranties, and who FCA deprived of warranty extensions that the laws of these states entitled them to receive. FCA, including through its official parts, service, and customer care division Mopar, advertises and sells consumer goods accompanied by express written warranties. FCA provides these warranties so that its customers have a backstop should their expensive product break, suffer maintenance problems, or otherwise not work as expected. Seven states -- California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island -- require FCA to extend warranties for the time a vehicle is out of service for warranty-covered repairs: the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Connecticut General Statutes, Massachusetts Used Car Lemon Law. The Defendant is the maker of Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, FIAT, and Alfa Romeo motor vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul F. Novak, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG P.C. 3011 W. Grand Boulevard, 24th Floor Detroit, MI 48202 Telephone: (313) 800-4166 Facsimile: (646) 293-7992 E-mail: pnovak@weitzlux.com - and - Chanler A. Langham, Esq. Charisma R. Nguepdo, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 651-9366 Facsimile: (713) 654-6666 E-mail: clangham@susmangodfrey.com cnguepdo@susmangodfrey.com - and - Steven M. Seigel, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY, L.L.P. 401 Union Street, Suite 3000 Seattle, Washington 98101 Telephone: (206) 516-3880 Facsimile: (206) 516-3883 E-mail: sseigel@susmangodfrey.com - and - Kelvin Goode, Esq. KELVIN GOODE PLLC 4435 E. Chandler Blvd., Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ 85048 Telephone: (480) 788-0087 E-mail: Kelvin@goode-lawyer.com FIREFLY AEROSPACE: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Firefly Aerospace Inc. (NASDAQ: FLY) resulting from allegations that Firefly Aerospace may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Firefly Aerospace securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=46681 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On September 22, 2025, after market close, The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled "Firefly Aerospace Posts Wider Loss as Revenue Falls." The article stated that Firefly "logged a wider loss and lower revenue in its latest quarter, marking its first earnings report since its stock market debut last month." On this news, Firefly stock fell 15.3% on September 23, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] FIRST SAVINGS: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to First Merchants ---------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating -- First Savings Financial Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSFG) related to its sale to First Merchants Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, each outstanding share of First Savings common stock will be converted into 0.85 shares of First Merchants common stock. 47runc ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for December 19, 2025. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/first-savings-financial-group-inc/ . It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Metsera, Inc. (NASDAQ: MTSR) related to its sale to Pfizer Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Metsera shareholders will receive $47.50 per share in cash at closing, plus a non-transferable contingent value right entitling holders to potential additional payments of up to $22.50 per share in cash tied to three specific clinical and regulatory milestones. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for November 13, 2025. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/metsera-inc/ . It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Verint Systems Inc. (NASDAQ: VRNT) related to its sale to Thoma Bravo. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Verint shareholders will receive $20.50 per share in cash. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for November 18, 2025. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/verint-systems-inc/ . It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Merus N.V. (NASDAQ: MRUS) related to its sale to GEnmad A/S. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Merus stockholders will receive $97.00 in cash per share. ACT NOW. The Tender Offer expires on December 11, 2025. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/merus-n-v/ . It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] FISHERMAN'S COVE: Underpays Restaurant Butchers, Martinez Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALVARO MARTINEZ RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FISHERMAN'S COVE III, INC. (D/B/A FISHERMAN'S COVE), FISHERMAN'S COVE 4917, INC. (D/B/A FISHERMAN'S COVE), FISHERMAN'S COVE 8608, INC. (D/B/A FISHERMAN'S COVE) and KIRK GIBSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05843 (E.D.N.Y., October 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to timely pay wages. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a butcher at Fisherman's Cove restaurants in New York from approximately 2010 until in or about November 2024. Fisherman's Cove III, Inc., doing business as Fisherman's Cove, is a restaurant owner and operator located at 2137 Nostrand Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. Fisherman's Cove 4917, Inc., doing business as Fisherman's Cove, is a restaurant owner and operator located at 4917 Church Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. Fisherman's Cove 8608, Inc., doing business as Fisherman's Cove, is a restaurant owner and operator located at 8608 Foster Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE AND ASSOCIATES PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 FLYING FOOD: Sanchez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled LILIAN SANCHEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLYING FOOD GROUP, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV25258, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, on October 10, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-09739 to the proceeding. The Complaint brings eight causes of action for: 1) failure to pay minimum wages; 2) unpaid overtime compensation; 3) failure to provide meal periods; 4) failure to provide rest periods; 5) failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; 6) waiting time penalties; 7) failure to provide itemized wage statements; and 8) unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professions Code. Flying Food Group, LLC operates as a global catering company.[BN] Defendant Flying Food Group, LLC is represented by: John A. Conkle, Esq. Amanda R. Washton, Esq. Kelly M. Peterson, Esq. THOMPSON HINE LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3217 Telephone: (310) 998-9100 Facsimile: (310) 998-9109 E-mail: John.Conkle@thompsonhine.com Amanda.Washton@ThompsonHine.com Kelly.Peterson@ThompsonHine.com FORIS DAX: Aids Third Parties to Collect Clients' Data, Ortiz Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE ORTIZ and JAVIER HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FORIS DAX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-08950-AGT (N.D. Cal., October 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, wiretapping and use of a pen register in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, common law fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged action of causing third-party cookies and corresponding data to be stored on consumers' devices and/or transmitted to third parties when they visit the Defendant's website despite consumers' clear declination of such third-party cookies. According to the complaint, these third-party cookies permitted the third parties to track and collect data in real time regarding website visitors' behaviors and communications. The Plaintiffs and Class members have been damaged by the Defendant's invasion of their privacy and are entitled to just compensation, including monetary damages. Foris Dax, Inc. is a cryptocurrency platform provider, with its headquarters in Tyler, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Todd Kennedy, Esq. Kali R. Backer, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 Email: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com todd@gutridesafier.com kali@gutridesafier.com GETAWAY TAMPA: Bowles Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON BOWLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. THE GETAWAY TAMPA BAY, LLC d/b/a THE GETAWAY, Case No. 8:25-cv-02467-SDM-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for conditional certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") Collective. The facts alleged in the Complaint and stated in the Declarations support the inference that dozens of Servers were subjected to the same violation as a result of Defendant's restaurant-wide policy. The Plaintiffs demonstrate that they and other Servers employed within the past three (3) years are unified by a common theory of FLSA liability. Accordingly, all five factors weigh in favor of finding Plaintiffs similarly situated for purposes of conditional certification. The Plaintiff moves to conditionally certify the following collective of similarly situated Server Employees: Tip Misappropriation Collective: "All current and former individuals employed by the Defendant as servers (including those titled "server," "waiter," "waitress," or similar) at The Getaway in Pinellas County, Florida, who, at any time during the three (3) years preceding the filing of this Complaint, were subjected to a tip pool that included managers or supervisors, or had any portion of their tips retained, shared, or diverted to managers or supervisors." The Defendant owns and operates the restaurant, The Getaway. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TZECyR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael V. Miller, Esq. Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS – JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com GFA ALABAMA: Response to FAC Extended to Nov. 6 ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JIMMY MARTINEZ-LOPEZ and ROSA LINDA SORIANO-TORRES, Individually and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, v. GFA ALABAMA INC. and GLOVIS GEORGIA, LLC d/b/a HYUNDAI GLOVIS, Case No. 1:24-cv-02676-JPB-CCB (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Bly entered an order as follows (1) The deadline for the Defendants to file their respective answers to the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint be extended through and including Nov. 6, 2025; (2) The deadline for the Parties to confer pursuant to Rule 26(f) be extended through and including Nov. 20, 2025; (3) The local rule deadline to file a motion for class certification be stayed pending dates to be proposed by the Parties in their joint preliminary report and discovery plan; and (4) The deadline for the Parties to file their joint preliminary report and discovery plan be extended through and including Nov. 24, 2025. GFA provides furnishing automotive services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sTurWh at no extra charge.[CC] GLOBAL E-TRADING: $12.5MM Settlement Final OK Hearing Set Dec. 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- William C. Gendron of ClaimDEPOT reports that consumers who purchased a three-pack or five-pack of Ultra Fast Keto Boost, Instant Keto or InstaKeto pills may qualify to claim up to $149.91 per three-pack and up to $238.44 per five-pack from a class action settlement. Global E-Trading LLC agreed to pay $12.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging participated in a scheme enabling retailers to overcharge consumers for these keto pill products. In August, The Fulfillment Lab settled similar claims for $200,000. Who are the class members? Class members must meet all of the following criteria: -- They purchased either a three-pack or five-pack of Ultra Fast Keto Boost, Instant Keto or InstaKeto pills. -- They made their purchase within the applicable statute of limitations period. -- They did not receive a full refund for their purchase. -- They did not successfully charge back their purchase. The settlement administrator will identify class members primarily through shipping records. It likely already verified class members who received a prepopulated claim form. However, those who did not receive a notification but believe they qualify can still submit a claim by providing proof of purchase. How much can class members receive? The amount class members can receive from the settlement depends on the number of qualifying products they purchased. -- Those who purchased a three-pack(s) can receive up to $149.91. -- Those who purchased a five-pack(s) can receive up to $238.44. If the total amount all class members claim exceeds the available settlement funds, the settlement administrator will reduce payments proportionally so the total does not surpass the fund. Class members listed in the shipping records may receive the full amount up to the cap for their purchase tier. Those who are not in the records will receive payment based on the documentation they provide and the number of valid claims. How to claim a settlement payment -- Class members listed in the shipping records who received a prepopulated claim form should review the information for accuracy and submit it as instructed. Those who believe the information is incorrect should provide corrections along with their submission. -- Class members who are not in the records can submit the online claim form or download, print and complete the PDF claim form and mail it to the settlement administrator. They must provide a credit or debit card statement showing the purchase or an order confirmation email. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Sihler v. Global E-Trading LLC, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, P.O. Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 The claim deadline is Jan. 2, 2026. Payout options -- Paper check via mail -- Digital payment $12.5 million settlement fund breakdown The $12,500,000 settlement fund covers: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Approximately $4,166,666.67 -- Attorneys' expenses: To be determined -- Payments to eligible class members: The remainder of the fund The settlement administrator will donate any leftover funds to the National Consumer Law Center. Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: Nov. 18, 2025 -- Final approval hearing: Dec. 2, 2025 -- Deadline to file a claim: Jan. 2, 2026 When is the keto pill settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will distribute payments to class members after it completes claim processing and the court grants final approval to the settlement. Why did this class action settlement happen? The class action lawsuit alleged Global E-Trading LLC participated in a scheme that enabled retailers to overcharge consumers for Ultra Fast Keto Boost, Instant Keto and InstaKeto pills. While the company denies any wrongdoing, both sides agreed to settle to avoid the risks and expenses associated with continued litigation. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $149.91-$238.44 per claim Deadline: January 2, 2026 [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Faces Suit Over Chromebooks' Easy Access to Online Porn ------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Holland, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a Utah family is trying to launch a class action complaint accusing Google for failing to properly protect students from using school-issued Chromebooks to access online porn and other inappropriate websites. Identified only as John and Jane Roe, the parents of a minor referred to as M.C. retained George Feldman McDonald, of Bloomington, Minn., and Edtech Law Center, of Austin, Texas, for the Oct. 17 complaint they filed in federal court in San Francisco. The seven-count complaint accuses the tech giant of design defect, failure to warn, under both straight liability and negligence theories, as well as a federal civil rights violation and a claim under California's unfair competition law. The family claims M.C., at age 11, accessed pornography through a school-issued Chromebook and developed an unhealthy, severely harming addiction. In addition to a jury trial, the family seeks "actual, compensatory, general, special, incidental, consequential, punitive and future pain and suffering damages" along with court orders and compensation for their legal fees and court costs. M.C. got a Chromebook, according to the complaint, as a sixth-grader in March 2020 to facilitate remote learning. The family says M.C. was searching for information about Pokémon characters when "with each click, Google's search algorithms pushed M.C. toward increasingly sexual content, including 'pornographic Japanime,' which produced sexually explicit images, and eventually to content depicting real people having sex." The family said the school claimed its third-party filter couldn't prevent access to pornographic content and, despite attempts to limit access at school and monitoring usage at home, M.C. "continued to access pornography surreptitiously at school for years. The school continued to advise M.C.'s parents that they were unable to prevent such access. … Using Google's Products, M.C. engaged in other related dangerous online activities, such as sending money to strangers in exchange for sexually explicit photos and sharing personal information about himself with strangers, including his home address, thereby endangering him and his family." Even after the school placed a "high restriction" designation on M.C.'s account, access to pornography was possible. The parents ultimately placed M.C. in a low-technology charter school. According to the complaint, "Google's products are dangerous by design" because "product safety is bad for Google's bottom line" in that its alleged chief goal is to collect and monetize user data. The family accuses Google of a plan "to colonize K-12 education in the United States and around the world" starting in 2012 after the Chromebook laptop computer "flopped in the adult consumer market when it debuted in 2011." The family says their child's public school required students to use Chromebook despite a default setting that grants "virtually unrestricted access to the internet, where Google knows students are likely to be exposed to harmful content, such as pornography and violence, and harmful communications, such as cyberbullying and sexual predation. Further, Google's search algorithms are designed to promote maximally 'engaging' content, which frequently is content that is dangerous, especially for K–12 students." The complaint alleges schools can pay to access "tools that, if used, can make Google's products somewhat less dangerous." It further said that while administrator consoles have configurable safety settings "they are inadequate and overwhelming, numbering over a thousand, they are ever-changing and difficult to navigate." In addition to suggesting Google could "redesign its search technology to not promote -- and even suppress -- content that is objectively harmful to children," the family argues the company could sell school Chromebooks with certain safety features enabled by default and allow administrators to roll back restrictions. It also called on Google to warn administrators, teachers and parents about the dangers of access to the open internet. "Google knows more about the intersection of human behavior and computing than any other company on the planet," according to the complaint. "Google also knows more about the dangers lurking on the internet, especially for children. Valued at roughly $2 trillion, Google could make products that arrive safe out of the box for students of every age. Instead, it makes products that are dangerous for all students because of the internet-first design that Google's data-monetization business model requires." Ultimately, the family argued the law puts the onus on companies like Google to ensure children can safely use products, but said Google's business model improperly shifts that burden to schools, parents and even the children themselves. The complaint quoted from Gemini, Google's own artificial intelligence model, regarding the safety of unrestricted internet access and said the company didn't account for the risks it plainly understands but nonetheless specifically and directly markets its products as safe to the education market. The complaint alleges Google's conduct "is so entwined" with school district policies and functions -- "namely, collection and maintenance of student information and provision of administrative and pedagogical tools and services" -- it can be sued as an agent of the state for an alleged violation of 14th Amendment rights "of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children and "to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control." Google did not respond to a request for comment. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Plaintiffs Seek Additional $2.36-Bil. Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ PYMNTS reports that consumers who won a $425 million jury verdict in a privacy class action against Google are reportedly now seeking an additional $2.36 billion from the tech giant. In an October 22 court filing, the consumers said the $425 million in damages was "clearly insufficient" to remedy the harm caused by Google's conduct and that the additional $2.36 billion is a "conservative approximation" of the company's ill-gotten gains, Reuters reported October 23. Referring to the verdict in which the jury found that Google secretly collected app activity data from users who had disabled account tracking, the consumers said that the jury "found that Google's conduct was highly offensive, harmful, and without consent." The plaintiffs had sought more than $31 billion in damages during the trial, according to the report. Google has denied wrongdoing and said it will appeal the verdict, the report said. On October 22, the company asked the judge to decertify the class, saying that the claims depend on app usage, user expectations and other individualized factors, per the report. When the verdict in the privacy class action was announced in September, it was reported that the jury awarded $425 million rather than $31 billion in damages because it concluded that Google had not acted with malice and therefore did not have to pay punitive damages. The case began in July 2020 and covered nearly 98 million Google users and more than 170 million devices. The plaintiffs argued that Google continued gathering data through its ties with third-party apps that use Google analytics services. Google countered that the data collected was pseudonymous, nonpersonal and stored securely in encrypted systems. The company maintained that the information was not linked to user identities or Google accounts. At the end of the jury trial, an attorney for the plaintiffs, David Boies, said his clients were "obviously very pleased with the verdict the jury returned." Google announced its plans to appeal. Company spokesperson Jose Castaneda said at the time: "This decision misunderstands how our products work. Our privacy tools give people control over their data, and when they turn off personalization, we honor that choice." [GN] GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Paus Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ SAMANTHA PAUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE AGENCY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01161-Y (N.D. Tex., October 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between March 6, 2025, and March 13, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Goosehead Insurance Agency LLC is an insurance agency, headquartered in Westlake, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Rosas Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ERNESTO ROSAS JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02793-O (N.D. Tex., October 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant after cybercriminals had gained unauthorized access to clients' and employees' personally identifiable information, including but not limited to their names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers and/or state identification numbers, and financial account information. Between March 6, 2025, and March 13, 2025, Goosehead lost control over its computer network and the highly sensitive personal information stored therein was stolen in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals. The cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because it failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and securing the PII of Plaintiff, and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII—rendering it an easy target for cybercriminals. The Plaintiff and the Class are victims of Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber security measures, asserts the complaint. Specifically, the Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class trusted Defendant with their PII. But Defendant betrayed that trust. The Defendant failed to properly use up-to-date security practices to prevent the data breach, the complaint adds. Goosehead Insurance Agency, LLC is an insurance agency that distributes products and services throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com lloginov@shamisgentile.com HEAVENLY FINEST: Faces Velasquez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- CLABER VELASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEAVENLY FINEST DELI INC. (D/B/A HEAVENLY FINEST DELI), and YOUSEF MEFLEH, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08542 (S.D.N.Y., October 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a delivery worker at Heavenly Finest Deli from approximately August 4, 2025, until on or about September 3, 2025. Heavenly Finest Deli Inc., doing business as Heavenly Finest Deli, is a grocery/deli owner and operator, located at 1824 Second Avenue, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 HTH COMMUNICATIONS: Duffy Sues Over Unlawful Advertisement ---------------------------------------------------------- Peter Duffy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HTH COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-09852 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 14, 2025), is brought against the Defendant under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), as a result of the Defendant's unlawful advertisement or marketing call or text messages. The Defendant routinely violates the TCPA, by delivering, or causing to be delivered, more than one advertisement or marketing call or text message to residential or cellular telephone numbers registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry ("DNC Registry") without prior express invitation or permission required by the TCPA. The Defendant called the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number thirty-one days after the Plaintiff registered it with the DNC Registry. The calls were intended for someone other than, and unknown to, the Plaintiff. The purpose of the calls was to advertise and market Defendant's business or services. The Plaintiff did not give the Defendant prior express consent or permission to contact telephone number. The Plaintiff did not request information or promotional materials from the Defendant. The Plaintiff suffered actual harm as a result of the subject calls in that he suffered an invasion of privacy, an intrusion into his life, and a private nuisance, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received at least ten text messages from Defendant from September 14, 2024 to December 10, 2024. The Defendant is a limited liability company headquartered in Houston, Harris County, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana J. Oliver, Esq. (SBN: 291082) OLIVER LAW CENTER, INC. 8780 19th Street #559 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Phone: (855)384-3262 Facsimile: (888)570-2021 Email: dana@danaoliverlaw.com HUDSON'S BAY: Former Simpsons Employees Sue Over Pension Surplus ---------------------------------------------------------------- AM800cklw reports that some former Hudson's Bay employees have filed a class-action lawsuit seeking a share of the defunct retailer's pension surplus. The court filing was made on behalf of workers who were enrolled in a pension plan offered by Simpsons, a rival department store HBC bought in the 1970s. The takeover made HBC the administrator of the Simpsons pension plan, which had a surplus at the time. The court filing does not say how big the surplus was when the acquisition happened, but says annual pension statement reports HBC sent Simpsons workers showed that as of Jan. 1, 2024, there was about $167.03 million in a trust fund linked to HBC's overall plan. Any surplus the company has stands to become a flashpoint in HBC's ongoing creditor protection case because lawyers have expressed doubt that the retailer will be able to repay the $1.1 billion it owed creditors when it collapsed. The debt caused the business, once Canada's oldest company, to close all of its stores over the summer, ending jobs for about 9,300 people. HBC declined to comment on the class-action lawsuit, which was filed in June but flew under the radar until a judge in its creditor protection case mentioned it at a hearing earlier this week. The class-action was filed by employment law firm Koskie Minsky LLP and names Telus and RBC Investment as respondents. Telus was appointed in April as the HBC pension plan administrator by the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario. RBC holds the assets of the plan. The court filing making the case for Simpsons workers to get a share of any surplus left offers a peek at how HBC's growth shaped its pension plans, but also pitted some staff against each another. The document says HBC added Zellers employees to the Simpsons plan in 1994 and then Kmart staff in 1998. Between 1994 and 2006, court documents filed by Koskie Minksy in HBC's creditor protection case show HBC used about $111 million of the surplus assets originating from the Simpsons pension plan to cover defined contribution pension costs for Zellers and Kmart employees. The moves angered former Simpsons employees who sued HBC to stop their surplus funding being used for the staff who had been rolled into the plan more recently. The judge in that case ruled that HBC could use the Simpsons pension plan surplus to pay its obligations to the broader defined contribution group while the plan remained active. However, he said if the plan is ever wound down, former Simpsons employees are entitled to the surplus assets in the plan, if there are any remaining. HBC appealed several parts of the ruling, including a portion that ruled it wouldn't be entitled to surplus assets. The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed HBC's cross appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada would not hear the case. Workers enrolled in the Simpsons plan now say they are entitled to that surplus because of the judge's prior ruling. When the class action was first filed, Koskie Minsky said the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario reported HBC's pension plan had 4,976 active members and about $460.07 million. About 17,000 active and inactive members had defined contribution entitlements under the plan, the documents say. [GN] HUEL INC: Faces Class Suit Over Heavy Metals in Protein Drink ------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Huel Black Edition Powder, advertised as a "high-protein complete meal," contains dangerous, undisclosed levels of the heavy metals lead and cadmium. The 31-page lawsuit claims that just one serving of the Huel protein powder contains "6.3 micrograms of lead," about 1,290 percent more than the recommended daily limit. This is in addition to the 9.2 micrograms of cadmium allegedly found in the product, "more than double the level that health authorities [ . . . ] say may be harmful to have daily," the case says. "The Product is worth far less -- or nothing at all -- because it contains known neurotoxins," the class action lawsuit charges. According to the complaint, these levels were ascertained after the plaintiffs filed an independent "investigation of his counsel," which was further confirmed by an October 2025 investigation conducted by Consumer Reports (CR) on the level of heavy metals in popular protein powders. The Black Edition Powder produced by Huel was one of only two protein supplements that CR recommends avoiding entirely, the filing notes. According to the case, exposure to neurotoxins like lead and cadmium can cause irreversible damage, and several health agencies recognize the way the metals "impair[] cognitive development, reduce[] IQ, cause[] behavioral disorders and learning disabilities in children, and increase[] the risk of miscarriage, premature birth, and long-term cardiovascular, renal, and neurological conditions in adults." Per the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization, no amount of lead exposure is safe. Similarly, the agencies agree that there is also no real "known safe level of exposure to cadmium." Despite the well-documented dangers of heavy metals, Huel has not disclosed the heightened levels of lead and cadmium in its product, the suit claims. Moreover, the lawsuit contends that Huel should have been aware of the presence of the toxins due to robust industry standards in product testing and the company's own emphasis on "periodically test[ing] products to identify heavy metal levels and to measure them against the recommended intake levels." The plaintiff is a California resident who had purchased the afflicted protein powder "dozens of times" and incurred damages as a result, as he would not have purchased the product if the heavy metal levels were disclosed, the complaint states. Huel's marketing director in the United Kingdom told the Daily Mail that the numerous reports against the company are "unnecessary scaremongering," and that "Huel's Black Edition is completely safe and meets all UK and EU food safety standards." Crucially, the United Kingdom and European Union have higher thresholds for daily lead exposure than California's Proposition 65, which the CR report was based on. The Huel class action lawsuit looks to cover anyone in the United States who purchased the Black Edition Powder for personal and/or household use within the applicable statute of limitations period.[GN] HUEL INC: Riley Sues Over Food Products' Harmful Lead Content ------------------------------------------------------------- DERRICK RILEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUEL INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05783 (E.D.N.Y., October 15, 2025) seeks monetary and injunctive relief against Defendant under New York General Business Law on behalf of the Plaintiff and a proposed Nationwide class, and in the alternative, under California consumer protection law on behalf of a proposed California Subclass. The Defendant manufactures, markets, and distributes a range of dietary supplements, snacks, and meals, which it markets as "Fast, nutritious, complete food." At issue in this complaint is Defendant's Huel Black Edition Powder, which, it sells as a "High-protein complete meal." According to Defendant, the Product "is a nutritionally complete powdered food that is high in protein and fiber, reduced carbohydrate, and rich in healthy fats." The Defendant claims that the Product "works to meet the HHS and USDA's Dietary Guidelines and Daily Value requirements for all macro- and micronutrients, and proportion them to provide what you need from a meal." The complaint alleges that despite Defendant's representations to the contrary, Defendant's product contains elevated levels of heavy metals. The Defendant deceptively marketed and labeled the product as safe while concealing and failing to disclose that the product contain dangerous concentrations of lead -- a known neurotoxin with no safe level of human exposure -- and cadmium, another dangerous heavy metal. As a result of Defendant's concealments and misrepresentations, consumers paid a price premium for contaminated products. The product is worth far less -- or nothing at all -- because it contains known neurotoxins. The Plaintiff and Class members suffered real economic harm, alleges the suit. Huel, Inc. operates as a specialty online retailer. The Company offers food that contains a balance of all essential vitamins and minerals, protein, essential fats, carbs, fiber, and phytonutrients in a single product.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 500 7th Ave., 8th Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 E-mail: raphael@janove.law HYUNDAI MOTOR: Burns Sues Over Concealment of Defect ---------------------------------------------------- Jason Burns and Allison Burns, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, and HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, Case No. 8:25-cv-02323 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 14, 2025), is brought against Defendants arising from Hyundai's longstanding and repeated concealment of a serious, latent defect in many of its vehicles' engines. From at least 2013 through 2019, Defendants manufactured the Engines for Class Vehicles with a dangerous defect that causes abnormal and premature wearing, loosening, and breaking of the Engines' rotating assemblies and internal components ("Engine Defect" or "Defect"). This Defect often results in the sudden and catastrophic failure of Hyundai's Engines. Despite Hyundai's longstanding knowledge of this Defect, Hyundai has announced only a series of belated—and incomplete—recalls of selected subsets of the affected vehicles over the past decade. Hyundai's incomplete safety recalls have failed to address the same Engine Defect exhibited by many, non-recalled vehicles and engines, including but not limited to the Class Vehicles and Engines at issue in this case. Hyundai routinely denies warranty claims when the Defect manifests shortly after a warranty period's expiration, despite Hyundai's prior knowledge of the Defect at the time of sale. In fact, Hyundai often declines to provide free Engine repairs or replacements, even when the Defect manifests within an express warranty period. In Plaintiffs' case, they presented Hyundai and its authorized dealership with their inoperable Class Vehicle and Engine and requested proper warranty coverage from July 2024 until October 2024. Throughout those three months, Hyundai and its dealership knew that there was an applicable, written warranty available for Plaintiffs' Engine, for precisely the type of damage that manifested in Plaintiffs' Engine. Nevertheless, for six months, Hyundai and its dealership intentionally and fraudulently concealed from Plaintiffs the very existence of the Extended Warranty, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are co-purchasers and former owners of a 2018 Hyundai Santa Fe SE, one of the many Class Vehicles containing a "3.3L Lambda II GDI" Engine. Hyundai is among the largest automobile manufacturers in the United States and the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Harris, Jr., Esq. Gerilyn R. Harris, Esq. HARRIS LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 213-1102 Email: david@harrisllp.com gerilyn@harrisllp.com INSTITUTE OF CULINARY: Adame Files Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Institute of Culinary Education, Inc. The case is styled as Jhoany Adame, Justin Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Institute of Culinary Education, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-08479 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The Institute of Culinary Education (ICE) -- https://www.ice.edu/ -- has been a leader in the field of culinary and hospitality education since its founding in 1975.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: Gary@lcllp.com JELLY BELLY CANDY: Lewis Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Adam Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JELLY BELLY CANDY COMPANY, Case No. CACE 25013472 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to the United States District Court for Southern District of Florida on Oct. 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-62073-WPD. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges a violation of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"), as amended by Senate Bill No. 1120, which became effective on July 1, 2021. Plaintiff alleges that Jelly Belly violated the FTSA because Jelly Belly sent Plaintiff a text message that populated Plaintiff's caller ID with a short code instead of a phone number that Plaintiff could call back.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Greory S. Weiss, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 525 Okeechobee Blvd., Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (561) 655-2250 Email: gweiss@taftlaw.com Secondary: tfoust@taftlaw.com psymons@taftlaw.com Icolunga@taftlaw.com mpalazzolo@taftlaw.com bbishop@taftlaw.com KELLY SERVICES: Faces Sines Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- RACHEL SINES, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. KELLY SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-13259-MAG-KGA (E.D. Mich., October 15, 2025) is an action for money damages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and other relief against Defendant for its willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees their overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant in the position of Professional and Technical Recruiter. She was allegedly misclassified as "overtime-exempt" and deprived of overtime pay in violation of the FLSA. Kelly Services, Inc. is a staffing agency that provides recruitment services for its clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex S. Hopkins, Esq. HURWITZ LAW PLLC 340 Beakes St. Ste. 125 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 KENDRA SCOTT: Faces Class Suit Over Fake Jewelry Discounts ---------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a California consumer, plaintiff Miltita Casillas, sued Kendra Scott LLC. Why: The plaintiff alleges Kendra Scott falsely advertises discounts on its jewelry products. Where: The Kendra Scott class action lawsuit was filed in California state court. AA new class action lawsuit alleges Kendra Scott falsely advertises discounts on its jewelry products. Plaintiff Miltita Casillas alleges in her class action lawsuit that Kendra Scott advertises fictitious regular prices and corresponding phantom discounts on the products it sells through its website. The plaintiff claims Kendra Scott's alleged false advertising practice allows the company to fabricate a fake "reference price" and present the actual price as "discounted" when it is not. "The result is a sham price disparity that is per se illegal under California law," the Kendra Scott class action lawsuit says. Casillas wants to represent a class of all persons who purchased any product from Kendra Scott's website while in California at a purported discount from a higher reference price. Lawsuit: Kendra Scott offered jewelry at false reference price The class action lawsuit argues Kendra Scott advertised a "strike-through" reference price of $120 for a pair of earrings she purchased for $89.97 on April 29, 2025, but the reference price was not the prevailing market price in the 90 days preceding the purchase. "These pricing and advertising practices reflecting high-pressure fake sales are patently deceptive," the Kendra Scott class action lawsuit alleges. "They are intended to mislead customers into believing that they are getting a bargain by buying products from Defendant on sale and at a substantial and deep discount." The plaintiff claims Kendra Scott is guilty of violating California's False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act and of common law fraud. She demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of statutory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Earlier, three consumers filed a similar class action lawsuit against Fossil Group Inc., accusing the company of misleading shoppers with inflated market prices and fake discounts on products sold at Fossil Outlet Stores and on its website. The plaintiff is represented by Scott J. Ferrell and Victoria C. Knowles of Pacific Trial Attorneys APC. The Kendra Scott class action lawsuit is Casillas v. Kendra Scott LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-02001, in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Diego. [GN] KINDERCARE EDUCATION: Atmore Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Chrimya Atmore, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KINDERCARE EDUCATION LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTERS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV466993 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Oct. 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-08851. The Complaint asserts claims for: Failure to Pay All Minimum Wages; Failure To Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods and Pay Missed Meal Period Premiums; Failure to Provide Rest Periods and Pay Missed Rest Period Premiums; Failure to Pay Wages Timely A Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Indemnify All Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Produce Requested Payroll Employment Records; and Unfair Business Practices in violation of California's Business and Professions Code Section.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Elizabeth A. Falcone, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. The KOIN Center 222 SW Columbia Street, Suite 1500 Portland, OR 97201 Phone: 503-552-2140 Facsimile: 503-224-4518 Email: elizabeth.falcone@ogletree.com - and - Matthew J. Gagnon, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 155 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4300 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-558-1220 Facsimile: 312-807-3619 Email: matthew.gagnon@ogletree.com KINDERCARE LEARNING: Ilyasov Balks at False Registration Statements ------------------------------------------------------------------- RUFAT ILYASOV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KINDERCARE LEARNING COMPANIES, INC., PAUL THOMPSON, ANTHONY AMANDI, JOHN T. WYATT, JEAN DESRAVINES, CHRISTIEN DEPUTY, MICHAEL NUZZO, BENJAMIN RUSSELL, JOEL SCHWARTZ, ALYSSA WAXENBERG, PRESTON GRASTY, PARTNERS GROUP HOLDINGS AG, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL, INC., and UBS SECURITIE SLLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08493 (S.D.N.Y., October 14, 2025) is a securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all purchasers of KinderCare common stock in or traceable to the Company's October 2024 initial public offering seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 against KinderCare, the Company's senior officers and directors, the Company's controlling shareholder, and the underwriters of the IPO. On October 9, 2024, KinderCare filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4, which was incorporated into and formed part of the Registration Statement. The Defendants used the Registration Statement to sell over 27 million shares of KinderCare common stock to investors at $24 per share, which included the full exercise of the Underwriter Defendants' over-allotment option. According to the complaint, the Registration Statement contained material misrepresentations about KinderCare's business, the quality of care and education it has purportedly provided "throughout" its history, and the nature and magnitude of the risks and uncertainties that investors faced at the time of the IPO. In truth, prior to the IPO KinderCare provided substandard care, including numerous incidents of child endangerment, for example, instances where toddlers escaped facilities and roamed into traffic, children were left locked in facilities or buses, and kids were subject to intentional acts of physical, verbal, and sexual abuse, alleges the suit. Since the IPO, which occurred less than one year before the filing of this complaint, the price of KinderCare stock has fallen to lows near $9 per share -- a fraction of the $24 per share IPO price. The price of KinderCare stock has remained substantially below the IPO price at the time of filing this complaint. KinderCare is a provider of early childhood and school-age education in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: philkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com - and - Brian Schall, Esq. THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 301-3335 Facsimile: (877) 590-0483 E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com KNIFE RIVER: Smith Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KNIFE RIVER CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00237-DMT (D.N.C., October 10, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, but were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by Knife River as an operator in Casper, Wyoming since approximately April 2019. Knife River is a provider of an aggregates-based, vertically integrated construction materials company across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carter T. Hastings, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: catter@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com LA RUANA PAISA: Florez Sues Over Unlawful Employment Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------------- Cynthia Alexandra Diaz Florez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LA RUANA PAISA, BAR RESTAURANT LA RUANA PAISA, INC., LA RUANA PAISA NY INC., ROBERT PEREZ, and GERMAN SEVILLOMO, Case No. 1:25-cv-05756 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2025), is brought seeking declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief, as well as monetary damages, to redress Defendants' unlawful employment practices, including: discrimination against Plaintiff on the basis of her sex and pregnancy in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act ("Title VII"); the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"); and the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"); and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"); related New York State and City wage and hour laws and the common law. In January 2025, Carlos Cuevas joined La Ruana Paisa as the manager of the establishment. On Friday, February 21, 2025, Plaintiff informed Mr. Cuevas that she was not feeling well, having spent the night with fever and minor pain. Mr. Cuevas responded that Plaintiff should not worry and that she should rest. Later that same day, at approximately 6:56 p.m., Mr. Cuevas sent Plaintiff a message stating that "by order of the bosses" they had decided that Plaintiff should rest for the weekend. On Sunday, February 23, 2025, at approximately 12:08 p.m., Plaintiff sent a message to Mr. Cuevas asking about her work schedule for the upcoming week. Later that day, at approximately 10:59 p.m., Plaintiff followed up with Mr. Cuevas asking if she should report to work at 12:00 p.m. the following day (Monday). Mr. Cuevas responded by informing Plaintiff that the owners had made the decision that "for Plaintiff's sake and that of everyone," Plaintiff would not continue working with Defendants. Plaintiff immediately responded to Mr. Cuevas, informing him that she could not be terminated due to her pregnancy as that would constitute pregnancy discrimination. Mr. Cuevas denied that Plaintiff was being terminated due to her pregnancy and claimed that two new waitresses had been hired. On April 9, 2025, Mr. Cuevas's questioning about when Plaintiff planned to stop working and Defendants' further refusals to reinstate her shifts constituted further discriminatory and retaliatory conduct intended to pressure Plaintiff to resign due to her pregnancy and her prior complaints about discrimination. Defendants' retaliatory actions were designed to punish Plaintiff for asserting her rights under federal and state anti-discrimination laws and to deter her and other employees from complaining about discriminatory treatment. Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, mental anguish and emotional distress, including but not limited to depression, humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self-confidence, and emotional pain and suffering due to financial insecurity during her pregnancy During the week of January 18, 2025, Plaintiff worked approximately 60.25 hours across six days, including shifts lasting 12 hours and 45 minutes. Despite working over 20 hours of overtime that week, Plaintiff was paid only $650 in wages (excluding tips), resulting in an effective hourly rate of approximately $10.79 per hour—far below New York City's minimum wage of $16.52 per hour, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendants. La Ruana Paisa is a restaurant located in Jackson Heights, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Geoffrey Kalender, Esq. GEOFFREY KALENDER, PC 447 Broadway, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10013 Phone: (929) 489-0636 - and - Gustavo Juarez Humphreys, Esq. JUAREZ LAW, PC 78-27 37th Avenue, Suite 9 Jackson Heights, NY 11372 Phone: 718-806-1312 LAND O'LAKES INC: Lenz Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Cody Lenz and George Edmonds, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LAND O'LAKES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. VCU325133 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Tulare, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Oct. 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-at-00946. The Complaint alleges class action claims for: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; failure to timely pay final wages at termination; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and unfair business practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Joan B. Tucker Fife, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 101 California Street, 21st Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5891 Phone: +1 415-591-1000 Facsimile: +1 415-591-1400 Email: JFife@winston.com - and - Caitlin McCann, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 S Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543 Phone: +1 415-591-1000 Facsimile: +1 415-591-1400 Email: CMcCann@winston.com LANDS' END: Appeals Court Reaffirms Order in Uniform Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Caitlyn Rosen, writing for Courthouse News, reports that a Seventh Circuit panel reaffirmed an order in favor of retailer Lands' End on Thursday, October 23, in an underlying class action from a group of airline employees who said the retailer's uniforms made them sick. A group of 600 Delta Air Lines employees said the Lands' End uniforms caused rashes, hair loss, breathing difficulties and low white blood cell counts in a Wisconsin class action filed in 2019. The uniforms "bled dye and harmful substances onto plaintiffs' bodies and property," a process called "crocking," the employees wrote in their appellants' brief. A Wisconsin federal judge, however, disagreed and granted summary judgment to Lands' End because the group was unable to prove whether the uniforms were defective and whether those uniforms caused plaintiffs' injuries, and a Seventh Circuit panel concurred. "At best, the laboratory results and expert opinions show that some garments leached dye, that some garments contained chemicals and heavy metals at varying levels, and that some crocking resulted in non-threatening chemical transfer," U.S. Circuit Judge Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, a Joe Biden appointee, wrote in October 23 opinion. "None of the experts' findings permit a jury to conclude that the hundreds of garments plaintiffs wore were defective in a manner resulting in the transfer of toxins." The differences in expert testimony were a paramount point of discussion and contention during the November 2024 arguments before the Seventh Circuit. The employees' attorney, Bryan Gowdy, pointed to an expert testimony from epidemiologist Michael Freeman, which was omitted from the Wisconsin judge's summary judgment because it was deemed unreliable. Gowdy argued that the Wisconsin court improperly scrutinized Freeman's data quality rather than considering the reliability of his methodology. But the Seventh Circuit panel didn't quite agree with that conclusion. "We find the district court acted within its discretion to exclude Dr. Freeman's causation opinion for lack of reliability under federal procedural law," Jackson-Akiwumi wrote in a footnote of the final judgment and order. Freeman testified that the exposure to chemicals and dyes from the Lands' End uniforms very plausibly caused the class of employees' injuries, based on his analysis of employee questionnaires. During the November 2024 arguments, the Seventh Circuit panel repeatedly asked Gowdy if there was any evidence that the uniforms were unreasonably dangerous, which he couldn't answer concretely. "If a uniform gets you sick --" Gowdy started to answer, before U.S. Circuit Judge Doris Pryor chimed in, saying, "That's causation. We're wanting to talk about the defect." Gowdy said the defect and causation are related. "If my coffee machine makes cold coffee, well, that's a defect and I get my money back, but I'm probably not going to get hurt from that. But if my coffee machine makes coffee that's 250 degrees and I get hurt, well, that's unreasonably dangerous," he responded to Joe Biden appointee Pryor. The Seventh Circuit panel, however, couldn't get behind Gowdy's leap from defect to causation. "While the district court ought to have considered these issues in the first instance, remand is unnecessary because plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden as to the existence of a defect and as to causation based on Dr. Freeman's usage of the questionnaire data," the order reads. U.S. Circuit Judge Nancy Maldonado, a fellow Biden appointee, joined Pryor and Jackson-Akiwumi on the panel. [GN] LANGDON & COMPANY: Holland Suit Removed to E.D. North Carolina -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Susan Holland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LANGDON & COMPANY, LLP, Case No. 25CV031232-910 was removed from the Superior Court of North Carolina for the County of Wake, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of North Carolina on Oct. 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00654-FL. The Complaint asserts the following claims: negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The foregoing claims arise from Plaintiff's allegations that Langdon failed to properly secure and safeguard Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") (collectively, the "Private Information") of patients of Easter Seals UCP North Carolina & Virginia, Inc., which it had access to as a provider of accounting services to Easterseals. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Defendant "failed to use reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information they maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Member's Private Information."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: William J. McMahon, IV, Esq. David A. Yudelson, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP One West Fourth Street, Suite 850 Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Phone: (336) 721-6860 Facsimile: (336) 748-9112 Email: bmcmahon@constangy.com dyudelson@constangy.com LATHROP LOGISTICS: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lathrop Logistics LLC. The case is styled as Irene Sanchez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lathrop Logistics LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0015227 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Oct. 15, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Lathrop Logistics LLC is a company that appears to be involved in logistics and transportation services, with a focus on the US market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Denise Ruiz Alfaro, Esq. ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP 1700 W Burbank Blvd. Burbank, CA 91506-1313 Phone: 213-493-6300 Email: desiree.ruizalfaro@abramsonlabor.com LAUNDRESS LLC: Filing of Class Cert Bid Under Seal Sought --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ostenfeld v. The Laundress, LLC et al. (Re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation), Case No. 1:22-cv-10667-JMF-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting leave to file portions of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification under seal. The Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal a portion of the Memorandum of Law in Support of the motion for certification, and a portion of the Plaintiff's declaration in support of the motion for class certification disclosing non-public, sensitive health information about the Plaintiff, information which is regularly sealed in this Circuit. Laundress provides plant-derived laundry and home cleaning products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T8jzSH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq. Paul Sweeny, Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 205 Hudson Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 421-6492 Facsimile: (212) 421-6553 E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com paul@sfclasslaw.com LAUNDRESS LLC: Ostenfeld Seeks to Certify Consumer Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ostenfeld v. The Laundress, LLC et al. (Re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation), Case No. 1:22-cv-10667-JMF-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff, on March 18, 2026, shall move the Court for entry of an Order: A. Certifying, under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), a class of: "All United States consumers who purchased Recalled Laundress Products after Jan. 1, 2021." B. Appointing the Plaintiff as the Class Representative; and C. Appointing Squitieri & Fearon, LLP as Class Counsel under Rule 23(g). Laundress provides plant-derived laundry and home cleaning products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k88JhF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq. Paul Sweeny, Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 205 Hudson Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 421-6492 Facsimile: (212) 421-6553 E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com paul@sfclasslaw.com LINCOLN NATIONAL: Turner Seeks Customer Care Specialists' OT Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH TURNER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LINCOLN NATIONAL CORPORATION, d/b/a LINCOLN FINANCIAL GROUP, a Pennsylvania corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-05882 (E.D. Pa., Oct. 14, 2025) is a collective and Rule 23 class action that arises out of Defendant's systemic failure to compensate its employees for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked at the appropriate overtime rate, in willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and the putative collective or class members consist of current and customer care representatives, customer care specialists or similar positions (Customer Care Specialists), who were compensated on an hourly basis. Accordingly, the Defendant maintained a corporate policy and practice of failing to compensate its Customer Care Specialists for all pre-, mid- and post- shift off-the-clock work. Ms. Turner is a resident of Atmore, Alabama. She worked for Defendant as a remote Customer Care Specialist from November 2021 to July 2025. The Defendant compensated her services as a Customer Care Specialist in the form of an hourly wage, most recently at the rate of $19.14 per hour. The Defendant is a company specializing in providing insurance and investment management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam S. Levy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ADAM S. LEVY, LLC P.O. Box 88 Oreland, PA 19075 Telephone: (267) 994-6952 E-mail: adamslevy@comcast.net - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com LINKAN ENGINEERING: Underpays Water Treatment Workers, Smith Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHASE SMITH, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. LINKAN ENGINEERING, LTD., Case No. 3:25-cv-00579 (D. Nev., October 15, 2025) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated to remedy Linkan's violations of the wage-and-hour provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Smith and other water treatment workers regularly worked more than 40 hours per week for Linkan. The complaint asserts that the Defendant did not pay Smith and other similarly situated overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. The Defendant improperly classified them as independent contractors and paid them a daily rate with no overtime compensation, says the suit. Plaintiff Smith worked for the Defendant as water treatment worker from May 2023 to March 8, 2024. His duties were to set up, run, and maintain water treatment equipment. Linkan Engineering, Ltd. is a global provider of water treatment services for mining and other industrial processes with its corporate headquarters in Elko, Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Esther C. Rodriguez, Esq. RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICES, P.C. 10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150 Las Vegas, NV 89145 Telephone: (702) 320-8400 Facsimile: (702) 320-8401 - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com dmoulton@brucknerburch.com LIVE NATION: Seeks to File Opposition to Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Skot Heckman, Luis Ponce, Jeanene Popp, and Jacob Roberts, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., and Ticketmaster LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00047-GW-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting opposition bid to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Specifically, the Defendants apply ex parte to extend word limit for opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendants seek this relief ex parte because Plaintiffs refuse to stipulate to extend the word limit, and Defendants’ Opposition is due on October 20. The Plaintiffs filed their Motion on August 18, 2025. Live is an entertainment company, which engages in producing, marketing and selling live concerts for artists. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cjQz5F at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin Y. Teruya, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. William R. Sears, Esq. Brantley I. Pepperman 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 E-mail: kevinteruya@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com willsears@quinnemanuel.com brantleypepperman@quinnemanuel.com - and - Alexios J. Dravillas, Esq. Warren D. Postman, Esq. Jessica B. Beringer, Esq. 1101 Connecticut Avenue, N.W, Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 918-1123 E-mail: wdp@kellerpostman.com Jessica.beringer@kellerpostman.com ajd@kellerpostman.com The Defendants are represented by: Timothy L. O'Mara Andrew M. Gass Alicia R. Jovais Samuel R. Jeffrey LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, California 94111-6538 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 Facsimile: (415) 395-8095 E-mail: tim.o'mara@lw.com andrew.gass@lw.com alicia.jovais@lw.com sam.jeffrey@lw.com LIVE NATION: Word Limit Extension to Class Cert Opposition OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Skot Heckman, Luis Ponce, Jeanene Popp, and Jacob Roberts, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., and Ticketmaster LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00047-GW-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George H. Wu entered an order granting the Defendants' ex parte application to extend word limit for opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court orders as follows: Defendants shall have an additional 3,000 words, for a total of 10,000 words, for their Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Live is an American multinational entertainment company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TIdlT6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Timothy L. O'Mara, Esq. Andrew M. Gass, Esq. Alicia R. Jovais, Esq. Samuel R. Jeffrey, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111-6538 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 Facsimile: (415) 395-8095 E-mail: tim.o'mara@lw.com andrew.gass@lw.com alicia.jovais@lw.com sam.jeffrey@lw.com MAPLEBEAR INC: Collects Biometrics Without Consent, Lewis Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- EYALLIA LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAPLEBEAR, INC. d/b/a Instacart, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12759 (N.D. Ill., October 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. The case arises from the Defendant's unlawful collections, obtainments, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's and Class members' sensitive and proprietary biometric identifiers and/or biometric information. According to the complaint, the Defendant collected and retained biometric information for the purpose of verifying the identity of the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees at regular intervals while at work. The Defendant did not inform its employees in writing that it was collecting or storing their biometric information. Moreover, the Defendant did not inform them in writing of the specific purpose and length of term for which their biometric information was being collected, stored, and used. As a result, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages. Maplebear, Inc. is a company that operates as Instacart, an online, app-based food and grocery delivery platform, based in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave., Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 Email: james@simonsayspay.com MARIBEL'S SWEETS: Hernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARIBEL'S SWEETS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05710 (E.D.N.Y., October 10, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.mariebelle.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on January 29, 2025, to access Defendant's website from his home in an effort to shop for Defendant's chocolate bar, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Maribel's Sweets, Inc. operates the website that offers gourmet chocolates, hot chocolate, artisanal confections, and ganache collections.[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 MEDSTAR HEALTH: Faces Outen Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- BRITTANY OUTEN and NIKIA BRYANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MEDSTAR HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03365 (D. Md., October 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure Plaintiffs' and Class Members' personally identifiable information and personal health information. On October 4, 2025, a ransomware group Rhysida posted on the dark web that it had obtained from MedStar over 7 million "pieces of patient personal data," including diagnoses and medication information. According to the complaint, MedStar failed to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain PII and PHI. The Plaintiffs seek, among other things, orders requiring MedStar to fully and accurately disclose the nature of the information that has been compromised and to adopt sufficient security practices and safeguards to prevent incidents like the disclosure in the future. The Plaintiffs seek remedies including compensation for time spent responding to the Data Breach and other types of harm, free credit monitoring and identity theft insurance, and injunctive relief, including substantial improvements to MedStar's data security policies and practices. MedStar Health, Inc. operates over 300 healthcare locations and 10 hospitals in Maryland, Washington, D.C., and Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Panida A. Anderson, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 499-1476 E-mail: panderson@baileyglasser.com - and - Bart D. Cohen, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 274-9420 E-mail: bcohen@baileyglasser.com MEDTECH PRODUCTS: Faces Class Suit Over Contaminated Cough Syrup ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that two plaintiffs, Richard Tschernjawski and Garvase McCullough, filed a class action lawsuit against Medtech Products Inc. and Prestige Consumer Healthcare Inc. Why: The pair claim the companies failed to disclose that their Little Remedies Honey Cough Syrup products are contaminated with Bacillus cereus, nor did they offer an effective recall remedy. Where: The Little Remedies class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. Two consumers have filed a class action lawsuit against Prestige Consumer Healthcare Inc. and Medtech Products Inc., alleging Little Remedies Honey Cough Syrup products are contaminated with Bacillus cereus, a bacterium that causes food poisoning and more serious health issues. According to the Little Remedies class action lawsuit, the defendants issued a recall for the products on June 17, 2025, but the recall has not been effective. The recall announcement instructs consumers who purchased the products to stop using them immediately, but the plaintiffs claim the recall is designed to prevent consumers from getting a refund for the contaminated and recalled products. Plaintiffs Richard Tschernjawski and Garvase McCullough also claim the defendants improperly labeled and marketed their Little Remedies Honey Cough Syrup products as safe for consumption while omitting the fact that the products are contaminated with Bacillus cereus. This is particularly concerning, the plaintiffs argue, because the products are marketed to sick children and infants. Little Remedies lawsuit: Insufficient recall measures and refund options Tschernjawski and McCullough claim in the Little Remedies class action lawsuit that the Little Remedies Honey Cough Syrup recall is insufficient because the defendants did little more than post the recall on their website and issue a minimal press release. As a result, the plaintiffs argue it is highly unlikely that consumers would have received notice of the recall, and even less likely that they would be aware of the remedies provided under the recall. The plaintiffs also argue the defendants did not provide a simple form that can be submitted online or by mail for a refund. Instead, they claim consumers are required to take a picture of the products they purchased and provide proof of purchase to receive a refund. Tschernjawski and McCullough also claim the recall is specifically designed to limit the recourse available to consumers who purchased the contaminated products. The pair filed the Little Remedies class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of consumers who purchased the recalled products. They assert claims for violations of consumer protection laws, breach of warranty, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. They seek monetary damages, restitution and/or disgorgement, statutory damages and treble damages for knowing and willful violations, among other forms of relief. The plaintiffs are represented by Russell M. Busch and Nick Suciu III of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC and Jason P. Sultzer and Daniel Markowitz of Sultzer & Lipari PLLC. The Little Remedies class action lawsuit is Tschernjawski, et al. v. Medtech Products Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-05930-CM, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] MESHKI LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, McCormick Says ------------------------------------------------------------- GRACE MCCORMICK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MESHKI LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08412 (S.D.N.Y., October 10, 2025) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. Plaintiff McCormick is a legally blind individual who relies on screen reading software to navigate digital interfaces and access online content. On multiple occasions in July and August 2025, the Plaintiff attempted to navigate Defendant's public-facing website, www.meshki.us, to browse formalwear and complete a purchase. Despite Defendant's commercial presence in the U.S. and its operation of a consumer-facing e-commerce platform, the website was incompatible with screen-reading technology and denied Plaintiff equal access. According to the complaint, the Defendant's actions violate the laws by discriminating against the Plaintiff and Subclass by (i) owning and operating a website that is inaccessible to disabled individuals who are sight-impaired and cannot discern the content thereof without the use of a screen-reading program; (ii) by not removing access barriers to its Website in order to make accessibility features of the sites known to disabled individuals who are sight impaired; and (iii) by refusing to modify the Website when such modifications are necessary to afford facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations to individuals with disabilities. MESHKI LLC operates the website that offers formalwear and fashion products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com META PLATFORMS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Impersonation Ads -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiffs John Suddeth and Sara Perkins filed a class action lawsuit against Meta Platforms Inc. and its subsidiaries Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp. Why: Suddeth and Perkins claim Meta unlawfully used financial professionals' names, images, voices and personas in paid advertisements. Where: The Meta class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit claims Meta Platforms unlawfully used financial professionals' names, images, voices and personas in paid advertisements. Plaintiffs John Suddeth and Sara Perkins' class action lawsuit claims Meta used the financial professionals' identities in paid advertisements and related promotional content disseminated on Facebook, Instagram and/or WhatsApp. The pair argue Meta's conduct induced investment in fraudulent, thinly traded China-based securities and violates the Lanham Act, the California Right of Publicity, the California Unfair Competition Law, the Florida Right of Publicity and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. "In practice, paid ads on the Platforms are created through standardized workflows in Ads Manager: an advertiser selects an objective (e.g., traffic, conversions or click-to-WhatsApp), uploads creative assets (text, images or video), chooses audience parameters (demographics, interests, behaviors and lookalikes), sets budget and bid strategy and designates placements across feeds, Stories/Reels and other surfaces," the Meta class action lawsuit says. Meta failed to take action despite warning, plaintiffs claim Suddeth and Perkins argue Meta failed to take action after being warned by a bipartisan coalition of state attorneys general that paid impersonation ads and WhatsApp investment groups were being used to perpetrate widespread fraud against U.S. consumers. "Nevertheless, during July 2025 and thereafter, Meta continued to serve or allow materially identical impersonation ads and funnels to proliferate," the Meta class action lawsuit claims. Suddeth and Perkins want to represent a nationwide class of financial professionals in the United States whose names, images, voices, likenesses, credentials, branding or professional personas were used without consent in paid advertisements or related promotional content on Meta's platforms to promote securities or investment opportunities during the period from at least Jan. 1, 2023 through the present. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and request declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of actual, statutory and punitive damages for themselves and all class members. Earlier this year, a group of complainants filed a class action lawsuit against Meta, accusing the company of enabling and facilitating a stock manipulation scheme that used its social media platforms to extract millions of dollars from victims. Have you ever purchase a financial product from a Meta ad? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiffs are represented by John T. Jasnoch of Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP and Tom Grady of GradyLaw. The Meta class action lawsuit is Suddeth, et al. v. Meta Platforms Inc., et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-08581, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. [GN] METEORA: Faces Class Suit Over MELANIA and LIBRA Meme Coins ----------------------------------------------------------- Edgen reports that a federal class action lawsuit accuses Meteora co-founder Benjamin Chow and others of orchestrating "pump-and-dump" schemes involving MELANIA and LIBRA meme coins. The suit alleges public figures were used as "props" for promotion, leading to token values crashing by over 90% after initial surges. 1. Allegations of Fraud: A lawsuit claims Meteora founder Benjamin Chow orchestrated "scam tokens" MELANIA and LIBRA through a "coordinated liquidity trap." 2. Significant Value Collapse: The $MELANIA token plummeted over 98%, and $LIBRA crashed by 90%, after initial promotions involving public figures. 3. Regulatory Scrutiny: The case highlights broader concerns regarding market oversaturation, the high failure rate of meme coins, and the ongoing push for regulatory frameworks like the proposed GENIUS and Clarity Acts of 2025 to curb crypto-related fraud. Executive Summary A class action lawsuit has been filed, alleging that Meteora founder Benjamin Chow orchestrated "scam tokens" such as MELANIA and LIBRA, utilizing high-profile figures Melania Trump and Javier Milei as "props" in alleged pump-and-dump schemes. The suit claims these tokens were part of a "coordinated liquidity trap," resulting in substantial value depreciation post-promotion. This legal action contributes to a bearish market sentiment for celebrity-backed crypto projects and underscores high volatility risks inherent in such ventures due to potential pump-and-dump dynamics. The Event in Detail The federal class action lawsuit, initially brought against Benjamin Chow and Hayden Davis, co-founders of crypto exchange Meteora and venture capital firm Kelsier Labs respectively, has expanded its allegations to include racketeering practices. The plaintiffs assert that Chow and Davis developed a "repeatable six-step 'playbook' for pump-and-dump fraud," which they applied to at least 15 crypto coins, including $MELANIA and $LIBRA. Meteora is alleged to have provided the technical infrastructure for these tokens, while Kelsier Ventures supplied initial capital and managed promotions, including recruiting crypto influencers. The lawsuit specifically targets the $MELANIA and $LIBRA meme coins. Melania Trump promoted $MELANIA on X in January, directing followers to its website. The complaint claims she was used as "window dressing for a crime engineered by Meteora and Kelsier," with the misuse of her name magnifying harm by injecting political and cultural credibility into the scheme. Similarly, $LIBRA was promoted by Argentine President Javier Milei. Following these promotions, both tokens experienced rapid surges before dramatic collapses. The $MELANIA token's value reportedly plummeted over 98% from an all-time high of $13.73 to approximately $0.18. Blockchain data indicates that team wallets linked to $MELANIA allegedly sold off more than $10 million in tokens, with an additional $30 million in community funds reportedly moved in April through structured sell-offs. The $LIBRA token saw $107 million in insider cash-outs, contributing to its reported 90% decline in value. Despite the severity of the allegations, a U.S. federal judge previously unfroze over $57 million in USDC connected to the LIBRA lawsuit, held in wallets tied to Hayden Davis and Benjamin Chow. The judge noted compliance with earlier restrictions and the absence of attempts to move or conceal the funds, though the case itself was not dismissed. Market Implications This lawsuit underscores the significant risks associated with highly speculative meme coins and the potential for market manipulation. The alleged use of public figures as "props" for token promotions, followed by rapid price surges and subsequent collapses, highlights vulnerabilities in the decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystem. The substantial losses incurred by investors in $MELANIA and $LIBRA, alongside allegations of insider cash-outs, are likely to erode investor trust in celebrity-backed crypto projects and increase scrutiny on new meme coin launches. The incident reflects a broader issue of market oversaturation, with estimates suggesting over 10,000 active tokens and up to 20 million created in total. Analysis indicates a failure rate exceeding 90% for new tokens, leading to catastrophic investor losses. Non-compliant meme coins, characterized by a lack of verifiable utility, transparent governance, and adherence to Anti-Money Laundering (AML)/Know Your Customer (KYC) standards, are identified as a primary vector for fraud, manipulation, and market contagion. Broader Context While a February 2025 SEC staff statement clarified that meme coins are generally not considered securities under the Howey test due to their lack of an investment contract structure, their capacity to inflict widespread financial harm is undeniable. The current regulatory ambiguity allows these assets to thrive on U.S.-based exchanges, exposing American investors to significant risks. This legal action could catalyze further regulatory discussions and potentially lead to stricter oversight. Proposed legislative updates, such as the GENIUS Act of 2025 and the Clarity Act of 2025, aim to establish clearer frameworks for crypto assets. The GENIUS Act sets strict requirements for stablecoin issuers regarding reserves, audits, and AML compliance, while the Clarity Act mandates disclosures and provides exemptions for certain DeFi activities. Adapting these principles to create a compliance framework for all tokens listed on U.S. exchanges, potentially banning "Non-Compliant Memecoins," could significantly reduce crypto-related scams by 40-60% annually. A U.S. ban on non-compliant meme coins would align with a growing international consensus on managing crypto asset risks, as indicated by recommendations from the IMF and FATF. [GN] MOONLAKE IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS: Peters Sues Over Drop of Stock Price ----------------------------------------------------------------- KAREN PETERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOONLAKE IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS, JORGE SANTOS DA SILVA, and MATTHIAS BODENSTEDT, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08612 (S.D.N.Y., October 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding MoonLake's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade MoonLake common stock at artificially inflated prices between March 10, 2024 through September 29, 2025. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material facts, regarding the distinction between the Nanobodies and monoclonal antibodies, including that: (1) that Sonelokimab (SLK) and Union Chimique Belge's (UCB) bimekizumab-bkzx (BIMZELX) share the same molecular targets (the inflammatory cytokines IL-17A and IL-17F); (2) that SLK's distinct Nanobody structure would not confer a superior clinical benefit over the traditional monoclonal structure of BIMZELX; (3) SLK's distinct Nanobody structure supposed increased tissue penetration would not translate to clinical efficacy; and (4) based on the foregoing, the Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements regarding SLK's purported superiority to monoclonal antibodies. When the truth emerged, the price of MoonLake's common stock declined from $55.75 per share, or 89.9 percent, to close at $6.24 on September 29, 2025. As a result of the 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. MoonLake Immunotherapeutics is a clinical-stage biotechnology company, headquartered in Zug, Switzerland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 Email: jeff@blockleviton.com MOONLAKE: Bridgewood Sues Over Exchange Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------- Charles Bridgewood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MOONLAKE IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS, JORGE SANTOS DA SILVA, and MATTHIAS BODENSTEDT, Case No. 1:25-cv-08500 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 15, 2025), is brought on behalf of the Class for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Defendant common stock between March 10, 2024 through September 29, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material facts, regarding the distinction between the Nanobodies and monoclonal antibodies, including that: that SLK and BIMZELX share the same molecular targets (the inflammatory cytokines IL-17A and IL-17F); that SLK's distinct Nanobody structure would not confer a superior clinical benefit over the traditional monoclonal structure of BIMZELX; SLK's distinct Nanobody structure supposed increased tissue penetration would not translate to clinical efficacy; and based on the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements regarding SLK's purported superiority to monoclonal antibodies. On September 28, 2025, MoonLake announced week-16 results from its Phase 3 VELA program. The results showed that SLK failed to demonstrate competitive efficacy relative to BIMZELX. Following the announcement, MoonLake's stock price cratered, declining $55.75 per share, or 89.9%, to close at $6.24 on September 29, 2025. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class Members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff acquired and held shares of the Company at artificially inflated prices during the class period and has been damaged by the revelation of the Company's material misrepresentations and material omissions. MoonLake is a Swiss clinical-stage biotechnology company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 398-5600 Email: jeff@blockleviton.com MORGAN STANLEY: Berger Sues Over Misleading Proxy for Merger Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL BERGER, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE PAUL BERGER REVOCABLE TRUST, and KEVIN BARNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JAMES FOX, LUIS A. AGUILAR, GAYLE CROWELL, VALERIE MOSLEY, GREGORY SMITH, LAUREN TAYLOR WOLFE, BARBARA TURNER, and MORGAN STANLEY & CO., LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2025-1183-BWD (Del. Ch., October 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting. According to the complaint, the Defendants authorized the filing of materially false and misleading Proxy statements that failed to provide all material information related to a merger plan wherein Bain Capital Private Equity, LP purchased the outstanding shares of Envestnet, Inc. in a take-private merger for $63.15 per share in cash. Specifically, the Proxy statements failed to disclose, among other things: (i) the extent of the relationships between Morgan Stanley and Envestnet's legal advisor Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, on the one hand, and Bain, on the other; and (ii) that an alternative bidder had submitted a topping bid with the upside of at least $72.00 per share. As a result of the Defendants' decision to conceal this material information, Envestnet shareholders unknowingly sold their shares at substantially deflated values during the Class Period. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC is a financial services firm headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly A. Evans, Esq. Lindsay K. Faccenda, Esq. Daniel M. Baker, Esq. Robert Erikson, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1120 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 499-3600 Email: kim@blockleviton.com lindsay@blockleviton.com dan@blocklevinton.com robby@blockleviton.com - and - Thomas Curry, Esq. SAXENA WHITE PA 824 N. Market Street, Suite 1003 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 485-0483 Email: tcurry@saxenawhite.com - and - Jason Leviton, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin St. Suite 1860 Boston, MA 021110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 - and - Jeremy Friedman, Esq. David Tejtel, Esq. Lindsay La Marca, Esq. FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PPLC 493 Bedford Center Rd., Suite 2D Bedford Hills, NY 10507 Telephone: (888) 529-1108 - and - David Schwartz, Esq. David Wales, Esq. Joshua Nelson, Esq. SAXENA WHITE PA 10 Bank Street, 8th Floor White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 437-8551 - and - Adam Warden, Esq. SAXENA WHITE PA 7777 Glades Road, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 3343 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 MUSKOKA RECOVERY: Faces Suit Over Treatment Centre's Negligence --------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo!Finance reports that Rochon Genova has launched a proposed class action on behalf of all persons who were patients at Muskoka Recovery, Detox, Rehab, Addiction, and Mental Health Treatment Centre and their family members. The claim, filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on March 17, 2025, is brought against Muskoka Recovery, its owners, directors, and certain former staff. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants represented that they would provide the Class Members with care and treatment for their mental illness, addiction, and substance use disorders, but instead exposed vulnerable patients to an unsafe environment through the negligent, reckless and harmful services provided at Muskoka Recovery. It is alleged that Class Members were induced to pay between $20,000 to $150,000 to attend Muskoka Recovery who failed to deliver the services they promised. The Plaintiffs seeks damages for negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and other claims. On October 23, 2025, CBC's The Fifth Estate aired a documentary entitled "Dying To Recover" reporting on the psychological, physical and financial harm that patients allegedly suffered as a result of their experiences at Muskoka Recovery, including at the hands of unqualified staff. Rochon Genova is committed to pursuing access to justice on behalf of individuals harmed by institutional abuse and neglect, including in psychiatric and addictions treatment facilities. The claims have not yet been proven in court. [GN] NEWPORT GROUP: Seeks More Time to File Response in Carmichael ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARMICHAEL, JR. et al v. HARRIS, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01127 (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=oqGJKE 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 NORTH ATLANTIC: Faces Class Suit Over Website's Fake Discounts -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a consumer filed a class action lawsuit against North Atlantic Imports LLC, doing business as Blackstone Products. Why: Welch alleges the company deceives consumers by advertising fake discounts on its website. Where: The Blackstone class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Blackstone Products of deceiving consumers by advertising fake discounts on its website. Plaintiff Charles Welch filed the class action lawsuit complaint against North Atlantic Imports LLC, doing business as Blackstone Products, on Aug. 1 in California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. Welch alleges that the company sells grills and cookware, regularly listing products with continuous discounts ranging from $50 to $200 off. However, these discounts are "false," as the products are never sold at the higher reference prices listed, Welch claims. According to the class action lawsuit, California law prohibits businesses from making untrue or misleading statements, including suggesting a product is on sale when it is not. Welch alleges Blackstone's website lists items with strikethrough prices next to sale prices, creating the illusion of a bargain. However, the former prices are not the prevailing market prices within the three months preceding the advertisement, he says. Blackstone earned millions from fake discounts, lawsuit alleges Welch alleges he relied on Blackstone's misrepresentations when purchasing a product, believing he was receiving a discount. As a result, Blackstone has earned millions of dollars from consumers who were misled by the fake discount scheme, he says. Welch's class action lawsuit claims Blackstone's conduct violates California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. He seeks to represent anyone in California who bought an item from Blackstone's website at a represented discount from a higher reference price. He is suing for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. He seeks certification of the Blackstone class action lawsuit, damages, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief and a jury trial. Luxury suitcase maker Samsonite is also facing class action allegations it misled consumers by advertising fake discounts at its outlet stores. The plaintiff is represented by Charles R. Toomajian III and Jessica M. Liu of Zimmerman Reed LLP and Christopher D. Jennings, Tyler E. Ewigleben and Winston S. Hudson of Jennings & Early PLLC. The Blackstone class action lawsuit is Welch v. North Atlantic Imports LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-07106, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY: Faces Suit Over Bias Against Arab Students ------------------------------------------------------------------- NORTHWESTERN GRADUATE WORKERS FOR PALESTINE (GW4P), IFEAYIN EZIAMAKA OGBULI, and MARWA TAHBOUB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12614 (N.D. Ill., October 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the Illinois Worker Freedom of Speech Act. The case arises from the Defendant's policies and practices that discriminate against the University's Palestinian and other Arab students by branding their ethnic and religious identities, cultures, and advocacy for the rights of their national group as antisemitic and subject to discipline. The University imposes ethnic homogeneity and political orthodoxy on students through several means, including by requiring them to 1) complete a training course that includes watching a training video, created in collaboration with an organization devoted to silencing criticism of Israel, which equates critical engagement with Zionism with anti-Jewish statements by the Ku Klux Klan ("the JUF video"), and 2) agree to be subject to disciplinary policies that incorporate the speech rules of the JUF video and otherwise characterize antizionism and certain types of criticism of the state of Israel as "antisemitic" ("the Attestations"). The Defendant's conduct caused the Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs' members severe emotional distress, suffering, anguish, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, and shame. Northwestern Graduate Workers for Palestine is a collective of graduate students at Northwestern University. Northwestern University is a not-for-profit university whose main campus is located in Evanston, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rima Kapitan, Esq. Yusra Gomaa, Esq. Hannah Moser, Esq. KAPITAN GOMAA LAW, P.C. P.O. Box 46503 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 566-9590 Email: rima@kapitangomaa.com - and - M. Nieves Bolanos, Esq. Patrick Cowlin, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL S.C. 111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 224-2423 Email: mnbolanos@hq-law.com - and - Christina Abraham, Esq. CAIR-CHICAGO 17 N. State St., Ste. 1500 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 212-1520 Email: cabraham@cair.com NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: $8.5MM Settlement Final Hearing Set Mar. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top class Actions reports that Nuance Communications agreed to pay $8.5 million as part of a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to protect consumer data in the MOVEit data breach. The Nuance settlement benefits individuals who received a data breach notification from Nuance Communications informing them that their personal information was included in files affected by the MOVEit data breach between May 27 and May 31, 2023. In September 2023, Nuance notified customers that their information may have been compromised in the MOVEit data breach, which reportedly compromised the information of millions of individuals, including patients, employees and customers of companies that use MOVEit. According to a class action lawsuit, Nuance failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures and failed to warn consumers about the breach in a timely manner. Nuance Communications is a health care technology company that provides services such as clinical documentation, ambient clinical intelligence and AI-powered medical imaging. MOVEit is a third-party file transfer software used by Nuance and other companies. Nuance has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to an $8.5 million class action settlement to resolve the allegations. Under the terms of the Nuance settlement, class members can receive either reimbursement for ordinary and extraordinary losses or an alternative cash payment. Class members who experienced losses as a result of the data breach can receive up to $2,500 for ordinary losses and up to $10,000 for extraordinary losses. Ordinary losses include bank fees, communication charges, credit expenses and up to four hours of lost time at a rate of $25 per hour. Extraordinary losses include unreimbursed fraudulent charges, identity theft damages and other documented monetary losses. Class members who did not experience losses or who did not wish to claim reimbursement for losses can receive an alternative cash payment of $100. This payment may be reduced or increased depending on the number of claims filed with the settlement. All class members can receive two years of credit monitoring, medical data monitoring and identity theft protection services. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Nov. 24, 2025. The final approval hearing for the MOVEit data breach settlement is scheduled for March 31, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Dec. 24, 2025. Who's Eligible Individuals who received a data breach notification from Nuance Communications informing them that their personal information may have been compromised in the 2023 MOVEit security incident. Potential Award Up to $12,500 in reimbursement for certain losses or up to $100 in cash as well as two years of credit monitoring and identity theft protection services. Proof of Purchase Documentation of losses, such as bank statements, invoices, receipts or phone records. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 12/24/2025 Case Name In re: MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 1:23-md-03083-ADB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Final Hearing 03/31/2026 Settlement Website MOVEitNuanceResource.com Claims Administrator MOVEit Nuance Resource Settlement P.O. Box 173041 Milwaukee, WI 53217 (877) 888-4839 Class Counsel E. Michelle Drake BERGER MONTAGUE P.C. Gary F. Lynch LYNCH CARPENTER LLP Douglas J. McNamara COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC Karen H. Riebel LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP Charles E. Schaffer LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP Kristen A. Johnson HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP Defense Counsel Benjamin M. Sadun Brenda R. Sharton Theodore E. Yale DECHERT LLP [GN] OAKBERRY ACAI: Faces Class Action Over Products' False Ads ---------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Yolanda Jean Pitre filed a class action lawsuit against Oakberry Acai Inc. Why: The plaintiff claims Oakberry falsely advertises its acai products as all natural and preservative free. Where: The Oakberry Acai class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. Acai brand Oakberry is facing a class action lawsuit alleging the company falsely advertises its products as all natural and preservative free when they actually contain citric acid. Plaintiff Yolanda Jean Pitre filed the class action complaint against Oakberry Acai Inc. on Aug. 5 in a California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. Pitre alleges that Oakberry Acai has falsely advertised its acai products as "All Natural" and "Free from Preservatives" through various channels, including in-store signage, at the point of sale, on its website and through promotional materials. However, the products contain citric acid, an artificial preservative and flavoring made through the fermentation of Aspergillus niger, a type of black mold, the class action lawsuit says. Citric acid is not commercially feasible to extract from fruits, so it is synthetically produced using heavy chemical processing, according to the complaint. This process involves using black mold to increase citric acid production, and the resulting manufactured citric acid has been associated with adverse health effects, including joint pain, muscular and stomach pain and shortness of breath, Pitre alleges. Pitre says she paid a premium price for the product based on Oakberry's representations that it was all natural and preservative free. She says she would not have purchased the product or would have paid significantly less if she had known the truth. Lawsuit: Oakberry's false advertising misled consumers Pitre says Oakberry's false advertising misled her and other consumers into believing they were purchasing premium products. She claims that Oakberry's marketing and advertising were central to the products' identity and that consumers had no reasonable basis to believe or anticipate that the products contained artificial preservatives. The lawsuit alleges that Oakberry's conduct violates California's consumer protection laws, including the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the False Advertising Law and the Unfair Competition Law. Pitre is looking to represent anyone who purchased Oakberry acai products in the United States or California within the applicable statute of limitations. She is suing for breach of express and implied warranty, quasi-contract/unjust enrichment/restitution and violations of California's consumer protection laws. She is seeking certification of the Oakberry Acai class action lawsuit, damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief and a jury trial. In a growing number of similar cases, The Kroger Co. is accused of falsely advertising its Simple Truth Fruit & Grain Bars and Campbell's is facing allegations over its Cape Cod brand potato chips also advertised as preservative-free. Pitre is represented by Joseph Hakakian, Benjamin Heikali, Ruhandy Glezakos and Joshua Nassir of Treehouse Law, LLP. [GN] ORLANDO FAMILY: Dunn Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Orlando Family, L.L.C. The case is styled as Mendi Dunn, as an Individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Orlando Family, L.L.C., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0015273 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Oct. 15, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Orlando Family LLC, based in DeBary, FL, is a family-owned business that offers a range of services to the local community.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq. YOON LAW, APC 751 N. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 102 Pasadena, CA 91103 Phone: 213-612-0988 Email: kyoon@yoonlaw.com ORLANDO HEALTH: Bid to Stay Class Cert Reply Deadline Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as W.W. v. Orlando Health, Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-01068 (M.D. Fla., Filed June 10, 2024), the Hon. Judge Julie S. Sneed entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's unopposed motion to stay its deadline to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and to disclose class certification rebuttal experts. -- These deadlines are extended to Dec. 1, 2025. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal Injury. Orlando is a private, not-for-profit network of community and specialty hospitals.[CC] PIPE-LINE OF SMITHTOWN: Poschmann Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL ----------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL POSCHMANN, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. PIPE-LINE OF SMITHTOWN, INC. and ANTHONY SCHIANO, Case No. 2:25-cv-05763 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2025) seeks to recover premium overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week in violation of both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a laborer from in or about April 2023 to in or about May 2024. Throughout his employment with Defendants, he regularly worked more than 40 hours in a single workweek but was not paid proper overtime wages under the state and federal laws, says the Plaintiff. The Defendant was a shareholder and/or officer of PIPE-LINE, had authority to make payroll and personnel decisions for PIPE-LINE, was active in the day-to-day management of the corporate defendant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com PLATINUM RESORT: Cannon Sues Over Unlawfully Used Consumer Report ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dominique Cannon, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. PLATINUM RESORT STAFFING, LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-00474 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 15, 2025), is brought against Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") as a result of the Defendant unlawful use of the Plaintiff's Consumer Report. The Defendant obtained information concerning Plaintiff from a consumer reporting agency named Checkr. The Defendant paid a fee for the information it obtained concerning Plaintiff. The information obtained concerning Plaintiff, was a Consumer Report (as the term Consumer Report is defined pursuant to the FCRA). The Defendant relied on information in Consumer Reports to make decisions regarding the Plaintiff, and on information and belief, the Defendant relies on similar information from Consumer Reports to make decisions regarding other prospective or current employees, including, in whole or in part, as a basis for adverse employment action; such as a refusal to hire and/or termination. The Defendant took an adverse action based in whole or in part on the Consumer Report and failed to provide Plaintiff the report prior to the adverse action. In taking the adverse action, without first providing a copy of the Consumer Report, Defendant violated of the FCRA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff sent his resume to Defendant in April of 2025 to be considered for employment in the Georgetown, Texas facility. Platinum Resort Staffing LLC is a domestic company doing business in Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Walker Drew Moller, Esq. SIRI | GLIMSTAD 1005 Congress Ave., Suite 925-C36 Austin, TX 78701 Direct: 717-967-5529 Main: 888-SIRI-LAW Email: wmoller@sirillp.com Web: sirillp.com POPPY'S CAFE: Faces Wills Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- LAURENCE WILLS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POPPY'S CAFE + BAKERY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05703 (E.D.N.Y., October 10, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.poppysbrooklyn.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was allegedly injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on May 7, 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. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Poppy's Cafe + Bakery, LLC operates the website that offers vegetarian and gluten-free menu options.[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 POSTABLE LLC: Faces Tims Class Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL TIMS individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. POSTABLE LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-02728-TWR-DDL (S.D. Cal., Oct. 14, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly, the Defendant sent Plaintiff four marketing text messages before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at Plaintiff's location). The problem with receiving unwanted telemarketing communications is a problem that most people in this country, like Plaintiff, frequently face. For example, in 2024 alone, approximately 52.8 billion robocalls were placed in the United States, the suit says. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of Plaintiff individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The class that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as: "All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through the date of class certification (1) Defendant, or anyone on Defendant's behalf, (2) placed more than one marketing text message within any 12- month period; (3) where such marketing text messages were initiated before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party's location)." The Defendant provides greeting cards.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com PROPER WAY SERVICES: Faces Saez Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Conn. -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE SAEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROPER WAY SERVICES LLC, BROOKSTONE DEVELOPERS LLC, and NELSON GUBOLIN, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01714 (D. Conn., October 10, 2025) is brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act and related provisions from the Regulations of the Connecticut State Agencies, and the New York Labor Law and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week without receiving appropriate compensation for any of the hours that he worked. The Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping as required by the FLSA, the CMWA, and the NYLL. The Defendants also took unlawful deductions from Plaintiff's pay, including but not limited to, Defendants' insurance and transportation costs, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from October 2023 until December 12, 2024, primarily employed in performing the duties of a construction worker. Proper Way Services LLC is a construction company located in Trumbull, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Steigman, Esq. Jennifer C. Messina, Esq. MADSEN, PRESTLEY & PARENTEAU, LLC 402 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 246-2466 Facsimile: (860) 246-1789 E-mail: tsteigman@mppjustice.com jmessina@mppjustice.com PURE'S FOOD: Noriega Sues Over Illegal Video Recording in Workplace ------------------------------------------------------------------- JAZMIN NORIEGA, MAYRA A. LORA OCHOA, LORENA D. OLIVERO BARRIOS, ANA E. NARVAEZ RUIZ, and BERNARD TROLY, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PURE'S FOOD SPECIALTIES, LLC and JESUS SALAZAR, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-12621 (N.D. Ill., October 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants arising under the laws of the United States, including the Federal Wiretap Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. On multiple occasions, from approximately July 3, 2024, to approximately January 7, 2025, Defendant Salazar, a male supervisor at Defendant Pure's Food, installed an HD Mini Wi-Fi Camera under the sink, facing the toilet, in at least one of the restrooms at Defendant Pure's Food Northlake, Illinois location. According to the complaint, the HD Mini Wi-Fi Camera captured approximately 30 people, including Plaintiffs who were employed by Pure's Food, with their private body parts exposed. The content captured by the HD Mini Wi-Fi Camera was wirelessly transmitted to Defendant Salazar's computer and saved onto memory cards. None of the people captured by the HD Mini Wi-Fi Camera had given consent to be recorded while using the restroom, says the suit. Defendant Pure's Food is vicariously liable for the acts of Defendant Salazar because he acted within the scope of his employment and/or because Defendant Pure's Food knew or should have known of his actions and failed to prevent them. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiffs suffered severe emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation, and mental anguish, and have incurred other damages. The Defendants' actions were willful, wanton, and malicious, entitling Plaintiffs to punitive damages, the suit contends. Plaintiffs Noriega, Lora, Olivero, and Narvaez were female workers, while Plaintiff Troly was a male worker at Pure's Food. Pure's Food Specialties is a cookie and specialty snack manufacturer.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter T. Sadelski, Esq. ED FOX & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 118 N. Clinton St., Ste. 425 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 345-8877 E-mail: petersadelski@efoxlaw.com PYRAMID ADVISORS: Duchesne Files Suit in D. Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pyramid Advisors Limited Partnership. The case is styled as Teresa Duchesne, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Pyramid Advisors Limited Partnership doing business as: Pyramid Global Hospitality, Case No. 1:25-cv-13015-LTS (D. Mass., Oct. 15, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Pyramid Advisors Limited Partnership doing business as Pyramid Global Hospitality -- https://www.pyramidglobal.com/ -- is a leading hotel management company, operating in the US, Caribbean, and Western Europe.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Casondra R. Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com PYRAMID GLOBAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Clark Says --------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PYRAMID GLOBAL HOSPITALITY, Case No. 1:25-cv-12997 (D. Mass., Oct. 14, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and that was impacted in a cyber incident (Data Breach). The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. In Sept. 2025, the Defendant was named as a victim of a ransomware attack. Private Information contained in the Defendant's network was accessed by the unauthorized third-party, the suit says. The following types of Private Information were exposed as a result of the Data Breach: name, address, phone number, and Social Security number. The Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to the Defendant's inadequate data security practices. The Defendant is a hospitality group that operates in hotels across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 260 Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com PYRAMID HEALTHCARE: Davis Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- CYDNI DAVIS, Plaintiff v. PYRAMID HEALTHCARE, INC. d/b/a PITTSBURGH DETOX AND RESIDENTIAL FACILITY; LINDSEY LAUDERMILCH; and LINDSEY HARKLESS; jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00354-SLH (W.D. Pa., October 10, 2025) is a class action arising from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Davis commenced her employment with Defendant on May 13, 2024 in the position of Dining Services Manager at the Pittsburgh Detox and Residential Facility. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, Defendant Pyramid Healthcare subjects her to heightened scrutiny, disparate treatment, and unfair disciplinary actions compared to her similarly situated white counterparts. The Defendants' failure to investigate or address Plaintiff's complaints, while responding promptly to white employees' concerns, demonstrated indifference and deliberate disregard for Plaintiff's workplace rights, says the suit. The Defendant also knowingly failed to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation at one-and one-half times her regular rate, in violation of the FLSA. Pyramid Healthcare, Inc. operates under the name Pittsburgh Detox and Residential Facility.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Bahorich, Esq. J.P. WARD & ASSOCIATES, LLC The Rubicon Building 201 South Highland Avenue, Suite 201 Pittsburgh, PA 15206 E-mail: jbahorich@jpward.com RAWLINGS COMPANY: Dascenzo Appeals Suit Dismissal to 6th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- JEAN A. DASCENZO is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Jean A. Dascenzo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rawlings Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01238, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. On June 17, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas against the Defendant for unjust enrichment and conversion. On July 22, 2024, the Defendant removed the case to this Court under the Federal Officer Removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1), and the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). On July 29, 2024, the Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, which Judge Charles Esque Fleming granted on Sept. 16, 2025. The Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1). The Court lacks jurisdiction over this case, so the case is dismissed without prejudice subject to refiling after exhaustion of the administrative appeals process. The Plaintiff must file her claims with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) pursuant to the administrative appeals process outlined in her Aetna Plan. The appellate case is entitled Jean Dascenzo v. Rawlings Company, LLC, Case No. 25-3825, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on October 16, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JEAN A. DASCENZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN 60 S. Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Telephone: (440) 352-3391 Defendant-Appellee RAWLINGS COMPANY, LLC is represented by: Michael Timothy Leigh, Esq. KAPLAN, JOHNSON, ABATE & BIRD 710 W. Main Street, Suite 400 Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 416-1630 REALPLAY TECH: Faces Clark Class Suit Over Illegal Online Casino ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRAXTON CLARK, individually, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. REALPLAY TECH INC. and REALPLAY (EU) LTD, Case No. 3:25-cv-01903-SMY (S.D. Ill., Oct. 14, 2025) arises out of the Defendants' operation of an illegal online casino in violation of Illinois law. Accordingly, the Defendants own and operate RealPrize (https://www.realprize.com/), one of the most popular and profitable casino and sweepstakes gaming website on the planet. Through RealPrize, users can access and play thousands of popular casino games, including jackpots, slots, roulette, baccarat, and Megaways titles (the Chance Games). Some of these games are even hosted by live dealers in real-time, further mimicking the experience of a physical casino. The Chance Games offered on RealPrize are unequivocally games of chance. Their outcomes are determined primarily, if not exclusively, by randomization -- rendering them indistinguishable from the games found in traditional, brick-and-mortar casinos. To evade regulatory scrutiny and mislead consumers, the Defendants market RealPrize as a "social casino," the suit says. The Plaintiff contends that the 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. RealPrize derives its revenue primarily through the sale of in-game currency -- specifically, virtual coins -- which function as a de facto substitute for real money and are necessary for users to participate in games on the platform.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. Edwin Elliot, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com edwine@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Gabriel Mandler, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com gabriel@edelsberglaw.com REALREAL INC: Faces Class Suit Over "Junk Fee" on Returned Items ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Plaintiff Marvin Fadrigo filed a class action lawsuit against The RealReal, Inc. Why: Fadrigo claims the luxury consignment company charges consumers an unfair, deceptive and undisclosed "junk fee" on returned items. Where: The RealReal class action lawsuit was filed in California state court. A new class action lawsuit accuses The RealReal, Inc. of charging consumers an unfair, deceptive and undisclosed $14.95 "junk fee" on returned items. Plaintiff Marvin Fadrigo filed the RealReal class action complaint against The RealReal, Inc. on July 30 in a California state court, alleging violations of state consumer protection laws. The RealReal is an online marketplace for users to buy and sell luxury goods that are purportedly authenticated by experts, with more than 38 million members, the lawsuit states. Fadrigo argues The RealReal imposes a "Return Shipping and Processing Fee" (RSPF) of $14.95 on consumers who return items they've purchased. The fee, Fadrigo argues, is not disclosed during the checkout process, and consumers are surprised when they are charged it upon making a return. Fadrigo claims the fee is a "sham" and a "classic 'junk fee'" that does not correspond to any actual shipping costs or "processing" work performed by The RealReal. Fadrigo wants to represent anyone who was charged a RSPF by The RealReal within the applicable statute of limitations period. He demands a jury trial and requests damages, restitution and equitable relief for himself and all class members. Class action: RealReal's failure to disclose "return fee" is deceptive and unfair Fadrigo argues The RealReal's website does not disclose the RSPF during the checkout process, displaying only the purchase price and add-on taxes and fees. The RealReal's failure to disclose the return fee is deceptive and unfair, Fadrigo argues, because it manipulates consumers into paying a hidden junk fee. The RealReal's tactics are deceptive, unfair and illegal under California law, Fadrigo claims, and its undisclosed fee is precisely the type of "junk fee" that has come under government scrutiny in recent years. Fadrigo argues the RSPF is inflated and far exceeds the actual cost to ship items back to The RealReal. He claims the company's practice of imposing hidden and superfluous junk fees on unsuspecting consumers is intentionally deceptive, unfair and contrary to law. Recently, food delivery company Uber Eats was hit with a lawsuit alleging the company charges a hidden service fee on delivery orders which is undisclosed until check out. What do you think of the claims made in this The RealReal class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments. Fadrigo is represented by Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Amanda J. Rosenberg and Sophia G. Gold of KalielGold PLLC. The RealReal class action lawsuit is Marvin Fadrigo, et al. v. The RealReal, Inc., Case No. 25STCV22523, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. RICHARD SACKLER: Faces San Miguel Class Suit Over Opioid Crisis --------------------------------------------------------------- SAN MIGUEL HOSPITAL CORPORATION, d/b/a ALTA VISTA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. RICHARD SACKLER, DAVID SACKLER, MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER, KATHE SACKLER, ILENE SACKLER LEFCOURT, THERESA SACKLER, GARRETT LYNAM AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JONATHAN SACKLER, RICHARD SACKLER AND DAVID SACKLER AS CO-EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF BEVERLY SACKLER, and RICHARD SACKLER AND DAVID SACKLER AS CO-EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF RAYMOND SACKLER, Case No. 1:25-cv-01010 (D.N.M., Oct. 14, 2025) is a civil action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against the estates of and other living individual members of the Sackler family for their leading roles in -- (a) knowingly, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently foisting, failing to prevent, and contributing to the opioid crisis that continues to destroy families and negatively impact the health and safety of the U.S. public, and (b) engaging in an unlawful enterprise to fraudulently transfer billions of dollars generated by Purdue from the opioid crisis to themselves. Accordingly, the Sacklers' enterprise is responsible for much death and devastation. Through the Sacklers' direction, the Purdue's sales of OxyContin, concerted efforts to push aggressive and deceptive marketing of opioid products, failure to take steps required by law to address diversion of its products, and other breaches of duty, set the opioid epidemic ablaze and stoked it for decades. Under the Sacklers' watchful eye, Purdue launched OxyContin in 1996. The purpose of the Sacklers' enterprise was to have Purdue spread the lie far and wide that its opioids were specially formulated to be safe, not addictive, and appropriate for a far wider range of patients and pain symptoms than previously understood across the medical establishment. As part of the Sackler's aggressive campaign, Purdue (a) improperly paid doctors to promote its products; (b) targeted doctors who had well documented histories of prescribing high levels of opioids; (c) secretly sponsored astroturf and front groups, such as Partners Against Pain, that would falsely portray opioids as safe; and (d) advocated for prescribing higher doses of opioids and for longer periods of time. Purdue was owned and heavily controlled by the Sackler family. In fact, eight members of the Sackler family held a majority of the seats on Purdue's Board of Directors until 2018. The Defendants personally pocketed more than four billion dollars from the opioid epidemic. They are the sole owners and beneficiaries of Purdue. They control Purdue and occupied the majority of Purdue Pharma Inc.'s board seats from its inception in 1990 until 2018.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher A. Dodd, Esq. FAYERBERG DODD, LLC 500 Marquette Avenue NW, Suite 1330 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 Telephone: (505) 475-2742 E-mail: chris@fayerbergdodd.com - and - Warren Burns, Esq. Darren Nicholson, Esq. Ryan Gaddis, Esq. Connor Weldon, Esq. BURNS CHAREST, LLP 900 Jackson St., Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (469) 904-4550 Facsimile: (469) 444-5002 E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com dnicholson@burnscharest.com rgaddis@burnscharest.com cweldon@burnscharest.com - and - Korey A. Nelson, Esq. BURNS CHAREST, LLP 365 Canal Street, Suite 1170 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 799-2845 Facsimile: (504) 881-1765 E-mail: knelson@burnscharest.com - and - John W. (Don) Barrett, Esq. David McMullan, Jr., Esq. Richard Barrett, Esq. Sterling Aldridge, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. P.O. Box 927 404 Court Square North Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com rrb@rrblawfirm.net saldridge@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. David L. Black, Esq. Monica Miller, Esq. Jennifer E. Kelly, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202)789-3960 E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com dblack@cuneolaw.com monicam@cuneolaw.com jkelly@cuneolaw.com - and - Steve Martino, Esq. TAYLOR MARTINO, P.C. 51 St. Joseph St. Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 433-3131 E-mail: SteveMartino@taylormartino.com RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL: Tamayo Appeals Arbitration Order to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- NEFTALI TAMAYO is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Neftali Tamayo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-05450-GW-BFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On July 23, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge George H. Wu granted on Oct. 2, 2025. The Court hereby adopts its previous tentative rulings on the motion as final, grants the motion under the terms delineated in the Court's previous tentative rulings, orders the parties to proceed with Tamayo's individual claims in arbitration in accordance with those terms, and dismisses Tamayo's class claims without prejudice. The Court orders this matter administratively closed without prejudice, with the Court retaining jurisdiction to reopen the case at the written request of any party upon the completion of the arbitration proceedings if necessary. The appellate case is entitled Tamayo v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC, Case No. 25-6503, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 15, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 20, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on October 28, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on November 28, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on January 6, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on February 5, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant NEFTALI TAMAYO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Ryan Chuman, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP 149 Sheldon Street El Segundo, CA 90245 Defendant-Appellant RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, LLC is represented by: Barbara Jean Miller, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Agrees to Settle Securities Class Suit for $250M ------------------------------------------------------------------- Rivian Automotive, Inc. (NASDAQ: RIVN) has announced it has agreed to resolve the previously disclosed 2022 securities class action litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Crews v. Rivian Automotive, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01524-JLS-E). The company denies the allegations in the suit and maintains that this agreement to settle is not an admission of fault or wrongdoing. However, settling will enable Rivian to focus its resources on the launch of its mass market R2 vehicle in the first half of 2026. Under the terms of the settlement, which is subject to approval by the court, Rivian will pay $250M to settle the claims brought on behalf of purchasers of Rivian class A common stock between November 10, 2021, and March 10, 2022. Details of the settlement stipulation can be found at www.RivianSecuritiesLitigation.com. If approved, all claims against Rivian and other defendants in this matter would be resolved. Rivian will pay the settlement through a combination of directors' and officers' liability insurance ($67M) and cash on hand ($183M). About Rivian: Rivian (NASDAQ: RIVN) is an American automotive manufacturer that develops and builds category-defining electric vehicles as well as software and services that address the entire lifecycle of the vehicle. The company creates innovative and technologically advanced products that are designed to excel at work and play with the goal of accelerating the global transition to zero-emission transportation and energy. Rivian vehicles are built in the United States and are sold directly to consumer and commercial customers. Whether taking families on new adventures or electrifying fleets at scale, Rivian vehicles all share a common goal -- preserving the natural world for generations to come. [GN] ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Suit Over Major Wireless Outage ------------------------------------------------------------------ Prisha Dev, writing for Global News, reports that people across Canada have reportedly been receiving text messages about a class-action lawsuit against Rogers Communications, and no, it isn't a scam. A Quebec court has authorized a national class-action against Rogers Communications Inc., Rogers Communications Canada Inc. and Fido Solutions Inc. over a major wireless outage that hit customers on April 19, 2021. The authorization means the case can move forward in court, though no wrongdoing has yet been proven. What the lawsuit is about? The suit, led by Montreal-based law firm Lex Group Inc., alleges that millions of Canadians experienced widespread service interruptions during the 2021 outage, leaving them unable to make calls, send texts or use mobile data unless connected to Wi-Fi. According to the firm, this service interruption also resulted in other damages, like medical issues, as people were unable to call emergency services and loss of income for those who rely on their phones for work, like delivery drivers and salespeople. At the time, Rogers said it had already provided customers with a one-day credit following the outage. Who can get in on the lawsuit? The authorized class action covers anyone in Canada who had a Rogers, Fido, Chatr or Rogers for Business wireless contract at the time of the outage. That means if you were a customer of one of those brands during the outage, you're automatically part of the class unless you choose to opt out. Should you be defined as a member of the class, you may be entitled to compensation should the court authorize and ultimately grant the class action on the merits, or should a settlement be reached and approved by the court. How to participate? If you want to stay informed or receive updates, you can register through the Lex Group's website. However, you don't need to do anything to be included and there's no cost to participate. The law firm says its fees would come out of any potential settlement or award, subject to court approval. If you prefer not to be included, you must send a written request to the Superior Court of Quebec by Nov. 23 and also notify Lex Group. What's next? The case will be heard in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal, where judges will consider whether Rogers is liable for any additional compensation beyond what customers already received. If successful, class members could be entitled to partial refunds and compensatory, moral or punitive damages. For more information, visit Lex Group Inc.'s website. [GN] ROLL-N-ROASTER CORP: Wills Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- LAURENCE WILLS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROLL-N-ROASTER CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05702 (E.D.N.Y., October 10, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.rollnroaster.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on May 5, 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 of a meal. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of placing an online order, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Roll-N-Roaster Corp. operates the website that serves as a fast food restaurant.[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 RTX CORP: New England Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------- THE NEW ENGLAND TEAMSTERS PENSION FUND, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Joshua Peneycad, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RTX Corporation f/k/a Raytheon Technologies Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01035-VAB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendant's violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). On July 23, 2024, an amended consolidated class action complaint was filed against the Defendants. On Sept. 23, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated class action complaint, which Judge Victor A. Bolden granted on Sept. 12, 2025. The Plaintiffs' Exchange Act claims are dismissed with prejudice. The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead falsity or scienter under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, finding this to be a prototypical fraud by hindsight lawsuit where forward-looking statements, puffery, and opinion statements were protected from securities fraud liability. The appellate case is entitled Joshua Peneycad v. RTX Corporation f/k/a Raytheon Technologies Corporation, et al., Case No. 25-2549, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 16, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants THE NEW ENGLAND TEAMSTERS PENSION FUND, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael P. Canty, Esq. James T. Christie, Esq. Jacqueline R. Meyers, Esq. Kaicheng Yu, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 Email: mcanty@labaton.com jchristie@labaton.com jmeyers@labaton.com nyu@labaton.com - and - Steven B. Singer, Esq. Kyla Grant, Esq. Joshua H. Saltzman, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 10 Bank Street, Suite 882 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 437-8551 Facsimile: (888) 216-2220 Email: ssinger@saxenawhite.com kgrant@saxenawhite.com jsaltzman@saxenawhite.com - and - Lester R. Hooker, Esq. Scott Koren, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 7777 Glades Road, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 Facsimile: (561) 394-3382 Email: lhooker@saxenawhite.com skoren@saxenawhite.com - and - Ian W. Sloss, Esq. Johnathan Seredynski, Esq. SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP One Landmark Square, Floor 15 Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 425-4491 Email: isloss@sgtlaw.com jseredynski@sgtlaw.com Defendants-Appellees RTX CORPORATION F/K/A RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, et al. are represented by: Graham W. Meli, Esq. William Savitt, Esq. Adam L. Goodman, Esq. Sunny Jeon, Esq. WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ 51 W. 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 403−1390 (212) 403−1329 (212) 403−2179 (212) 403−1323 Email: gwmeli@wlrk.com wdsavitt@wlrk.com algoodman@wlrk.com ssjeon@wlrk.com - and - John W Cerreta, Esq. DAY PITNEY LLP 225 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275−0665 Facsimile: (860) 881−2517 Email: jcerreta@daypitney.com SALESFORCE INC: Faces Tanzer Suit Over Use of Copyrighted Books --------------------------------------------------------------- E. MOLLY TANZER and JENNIFER GILMORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SALESFORCE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-08862 (N.D. Cal., October 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for direct copyright infringement. The case arises from the Defendant's use of copyrighted books to develop its XGen series of large language models (LLMs) without authors' consent. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated authors never authorized the Defendant to download, copy, store, or use their copyrighted works. The Defendant has never compensated the Plaintiffs and the Class for the use of their copyrighted works. The Plaintiffs have been injured by the Defendant's acts of direct copyright infringement. Salesforce, Inc. is an American software company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Christopher K.L. Young, Esq. William W. Castillo Guardado, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1505 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com cyoung@saverilawfirm.com wcastillo@saverilawfirm.com SALESLOFT INC: Faces Houdek Suit Over Compromised Clients' Info --------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY HOUDEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SALESLOFT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05945-ELR (N.D. Ga., October 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and injunctive/declaratory relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within the systems of its affiliated firm, AppFolio, Inc., following a data breach between August 8 to August 18, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Salesloft, Inc. is a software company based in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 4279 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108 Atlanta, GA 30342 Telephone: (678) 642-2503 Email: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com - and - Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St., Ste. 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 Email: aschubert@sjk.law SALESLOFT INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Keegan Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDIE KEEGAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SALESLOFT, INC.; and APPFOLIO, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05877-ELR (N.D. Ga., October 14, 2025) arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and over 72,000 Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information from being stolen by cybercriminals in a foreseeable, preventable data breach. The Plaintiff and Class Members are consumers who transacted with AppFolio's real estate industry customers. As a condition of transacting with AppFolio's customers, Plaintiff and Class Members were required to entrust their sensitive, non-public Private Information to AppFolio, and through AppFolio, to Salesloft. Between August 18 and August 22, 2025, criminal hackers accessed Salesloft's server and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII 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 or implement menial standards to prevent unauthorized intrusion to the cloud-based servers storing it. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' inadequate data security and breaches of their duties to handle private information with reasonable care, Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was accessed by cybercriminals and exposed to an untold number of unauthorized individuals, says the suit. Salesloft, Inc. is a software as a service 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 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (771) 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com SALESPROMIS LLC: Faces Wilson Suit Over Unwanted Telephone Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHET MICHAEL WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SALESPROMIS, LLC, Case No. 9:25-cv-81268-EA (S.D. Fla., Oct. 14, 2025) is a class action against Salespromis under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant routinely violates 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) by using an artificial or prerecorded voice in connection with non-emergency calls it places to telephone numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service, without prior express consent. More specifically, the Defendant routinely uses an artificial or prerecorded voice in connection with non-emergency calls it places to wrong or reassigned cellular telephone numbers, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and as a representative of the following class: All persons throughout the United States (1) to whom Salespromis, LLC placed, or caused to be placed, a call, (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, but not assigned to a person who provided their telephone number to Salespromis, LLC, (3) in connection with which Salespromis, LLC used an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) from four years prior to the filing of this complaint through the date of class certification. Excluded from the class are the Defendant, Defendant's officers and directors, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which Defendant has or had a controlling interest. SalesPromis is both a strategic marketing partner, and super sales agent.[BN] 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 SOLIDCORE HOLD: Stephenson Seeks Equal Web Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- JARON STEPHENSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SOLIDCORE HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-08595 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 17, 2025) alleges that Solidcore failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its highly interactive website, www.solidcore.co, in a manner that is fully accessible to and independently usable by blind and visually impaired individuals in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accordingly, On September 29 and October 3, 2025, the Plaintiff attempted to access www.solidcore.co using NVDA screen reader software. His intent was to browse and book specific fitness classes, including the "Starter50" introductory session and the "Advanced50" high-intensity offering. These classes were selected based on his interest in low-impact, coach-guided strength training suitable for his physical condition and rehabilitation goals. Despite multiple attempts, the Plaintiff was unable to independently complete a booking due to persistent access barriers. These included 48 empty buttons, 6 empty headings, 4 missing alternative text elements, broken ARIA references, and duplicate element IDs that rendered key class information unreadable by screen reader software, says the suit. The Defendant owns and operates the website www.solidcore.co, which offers consumers nationwide access to fitness classes, membership packages, branded merchandise, and subscription-based perks, including to residents of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 SONDERMIND INC: Discloses Personal Sensitive Info to Meta, Google ----------------------------------------------------------------- L.T., individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated v. SONDERMIND INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-02223-JRA (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 17, 2025) arises out of SonderMind's unlawful use of third-party tracking technologies by data brokers such as Meta Platforms, Inc. and Google LLC to surreptitiously intercept and disclose its patients' and prospective patients' private and protected communications, including communications concerning highly sensitive information, to third parties without patients' consent. According to the complaint, SonderMind encourages and requires its patients and prospective patients to use its Web Properties to communicate about their mental health conditions, providers and treatments sought, as well as to schedule appointments, pay their bills, and more. Unbeknownst to its patients and prospective patients, their communications were intercepted and disclosed to third parties through SonderMind's use of third-party tracking technologies such as the Meta Pixel, as well as Google Analytics, DoubleClick and Google Tag Manager, third party trackers from Facebook and Google. Accordingly, information concerning a person's physical and mental health is among the most confidential and sensitive information in our society and the mishandling of such information can have serious consequences including, but certainly not limited to, discrimination in the workplace or denial of insurance coverage. SonderMind is a mental health platform, offering access to psychiatric care and mental health therapy, through both in-person and virtual appointments. SonderMind mental health services on its online platform include access to virtual therapy appointments and psychiatric care -- including initial evaluation, follow-ups, and prescribing medication. SonderMind owns, maintains and operates a website, available at https://www.sondermind.com/ which contains a patient portal, available at https://client.sondermind.com/dashboard.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. Wilson, Esq. Jared W. Connors, Esq. MEYER WILSON WERNING CO., LPA 305 W. Nationwide Blvd. Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 224-6000 Facsimile: (614) 224-6066 E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com jconnors@meyerwilson.com - and - David S. Almeida. Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (708) 437-6476 E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com - and - Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Andrew R. Tate, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 833-4825 E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com atate@peifferwolf.com SPIRIT AVIATION: Faces Securities Class Action in S.D. Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Spirit Aviation Holdings, Inc. ("Spirit" or the "Company") (OTCMKTS:FLYYQ) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Spirit securities between May 28, 2025 and August 29, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until December 1, 2025 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Allegation Details: According to the complaint, after reorganization due to bankruptcy on April 29. 2025, Spirit's common stock was approved for listing on the NYSE under the ticker symbol "FLYY." Plaintiff alleges that during the class period, defendants failed to disclose that (i) Spirit was at substantial risk of being unable to meet certain of its debt and other financial obligations; (ii) Spirit was also at substantial risk of being forced to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection within a mere matter of months; and (iii) accordingly, defendants had overstated enhancements to Spirit's financial condition, liquidity, and overall business and operations, while simultaneously downplaying the negative impacts of adverse market conditions on the same. On August 29, 2025, Spirit issued a press release disclosing that "the Company has filed voluntary petitions for Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York" and that "[t]he [Company's] shares are expected to be cancelled and have no value as part of Spirit's restructuring." On the next trading day, September 2, 2025, the NYSE suspended trading of Spirit's common stock. Following the foregoing disclosures and developments, Spirit's stock price fell $0.71 per share, or 58.2%, to close at $0.51 per share on September 3, 2025 -- the first day that the Company's common stock began trading on the over-the-counter ("OTC") market under the ticker symbol "FLYYQ." Next Steps: If you purchased or otherwise acquired Spirit shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Brandon Walker, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Tel: (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com [GN] ST. PETER'S HEALTH: O'Brien Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ DEBORAH O'BRIEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ST. PETER'S HEALTH PARTNERS, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01439-AMN-DJS (N.D.N.Y., October 15, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New York Payment of Wages Act and the New York Minimum Wage Act. The complaint asserts that although Plaintiff and the putative collective/Class Members have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, they were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Specifically, St. Peter' regular practice -- including during weeks when Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members worked in excess of 40 hours (not counting hours worked "off-the-clock") -- is to deduct a 30-minute meal-period from Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members' wages for a meal break they did not receive, says the suit. The Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members were employed by St. Peter as hourly, non-exempt employees. Their job duties include assisting St. Peter's patients with their healthcare needs. St. Peter operates numerous hospitals and provides healthcare to patients across New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com - and - Ryan T. Donovaon, Esq. Michael C. Conway, Esq. CONWAY, DONOVAN & MANLEY, PLLC 50 State Street, 2nd Floor Albany, NY 12207 Telephone: (518) 436-1661 Facsimile: (518) 432-1996 E-mail: rdonovan@lawcdm.com mconway@lawcdm.com STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Tucker Class Suit Removed to E.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as JESSICA TUCKER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 250900880, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on October 16, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-5949 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff claims that Starbucks violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA") and the Pennsylvania doctrine of unjust enrichment by failing to pay Plaintiff and other hourly employees for all legally compensable hours worked arising at the beginning and end of the workday within the premises of Defendant's York, PA Distribution Center warehouse facility. Starbucks Corporation is an American multinational coffee company and cafe chain.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Andrea M. Kirshenbaum, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Three Parkway 1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1400 Philadelphia, PA 19102-1321 Telephone: 267-402-3000 Facsimile: 267-402-3131 E-mail: akirshenbaum@littler.com - and - Christian A. Angotti, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One PPG Pl., Suite 2400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: 412-201-7623 Facsimile: 412-456-2377 E-mail: cangotti@littler.com STRONACH GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over AI Horse-Betting Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------- A class-action lawsuit accuses major horseracing entities of colluding via computer-assisted, algorithmic betting that has disadvantaged everyday bettors in a rigged system that favors the wealthy, according to Hagens Berman. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Oct. 24, 2025, against racetrack owners Stronach Group Inc., Churchill Downs Inc. and the New York Racing Association -- who also own or co-own computer-assisted wagering (CAW) platforms Elite Turf Club LLC and Velocity -- in addition to United Tote company and Racing and Gaming Services. If you placed wagers into CAW-impacted horserace betting pools on thoroughbred horseraces while not using a CAW account, you may be affected. Find out more about your rights. Advances in technology have relegated betting and wagering in horseracing to online-based accounts which benefit from algorithms and AI and other inside information, according to the lawsuit. Wagering profits are now the result of an organized scheme and has resulted in the transfer of billions to a small group of inside bettors and the operators of racetracks and betting platforms. The lawsuit states that in many cases, given their preferential advantages, these inside bettors enjoy no-risk, no-loss "wagering" opportunities with respect to amounts now approaching nearly $4 billion per year," the lawsuit states. These parties, according to the lawsuit, rig U.S. betting pools in favor of a small group of insiders who bet enormous amounts. "We believe this scheme is not a victimless crime," said Steve Berman, Hagens Berman's founder and managing partner. "Its victim -- the average public bettor -- has been caught in a modern reverse-Robinhood scenario in which a select few with inside information are stealing from average public retail bettors and giving to the already rich -- a small group of bettors and the operators of racetracks and betting platforms -- the wealthy and few." "The use of AI-based assistance and other privileges extended to this privileged group has created the means for a privileged insider group who controls vast sums of money, to conspire with various elements of the horseracing industry," Berman added. "A Rigged System" According to the lawsuit, horseracing provides opportunities for significant profit for savvy algorithmic groups and attracts billions of dollars globally in wagering and trading. The lawsuit highlights various ways the insider betting groups can exploit ordinary bettors who go through slower retail or web interfaces. For example, the members of the insider betting group receive rebates/low host-fee deals that are unavailable to the public/retail players. "This changes the entire nature of the game for the insiders, making it extremely profitable to them, while the same betting strategies would bankrupt retail player," the lawsuit states. High-volume members of the insider trading group negotiate sizable rebates, so they can grind razor-thin edges and still show profits, while the same strategies employed by retail bettors would result in bankruptcy, the lawsuit alleges. These pricing advantages allow insider betting group members to profitably employ strategies that would bankrupt a retail player, according to the lawsuit. Additional advantages include preferential access and execution quality, ability to move prices when public bettors are stuck with worse final odds than they bought, an informational advantage allowing programmatic scanning of odds that a human is incapable of replicating, an ability to hedge and diversify across pools in ways impractical for retail users and more, including an advantage in risk management: The net effect of all of these advantages allows the insider betting group members to enjoy cheaper prices, faster execution, better information, and scale -- advantages that compound in a pari-mutuel system, where one side's edge directly reduces the other's, according to the lawsuit. The insiders do not just enjoy higher margins but are playing an entirely different game to the detriment of retail players. Racetrack Racketeering The lawsuit brings claims of unjust enrichment, conspiracy, conversion and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the same law brought against members of the Mafia for organized criminal behavior. The entities named in the lawsuit conducted an enterprise to achieve their goal, according to the lawsuit, which opens with a quote from a Guardian reporter on the subject: "Cash-strapped racetracks are selling out everyday bettors to whales who use algorithms to wager huge sums at friendlier odds. It's a rigged system designed for the rich to get richer." "Racketeering historically means basement meetings and mob boss meetings," Berman said. "Modern iterations operate digitally but still have the same effect: a colluded pattern of activity that serves to manipulate and corrupt outcomes of an otherwise legitimate economic environment, transforming them into something unlawful, in a repeated and continued fashion." "Our legal team is comprised of forensic accountants skilled in uncovering economic damages, and we intend to rightfully recover the losses suffered by those in this proposed class," he added. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages and treble damages as allowed under law in RICO cases. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law firm with a tenacious drive for achieving real results for those harmed by corporate negligence and fraud. Since its founding in 1993, the firm's determination has earned it numerous national accolades, awards and titles of "Most Feared Plaintiff's Firm," MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law. More about the law firm and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @ClassActionLaw. [GN] SURREY REALTY: Bid to Engage in Class Discovery Tossed as Moot -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Donna McCammon et al., v. Surrey Realty Associates LLC et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03292-VSB-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lehrburger entered an order denying as moot request granting permission to engage in class discovery. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JKBmvH at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: John R. Hunt, Esq. STOKES WAGNER ALC One Atlantic Center, Suite 2615 1201 West Peachtree St. Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 766-0076 E-mail: pwagner@stokeswagner.com TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES: Faces Suit Over Defective Pressure Washers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Adams of About Lawsuits reports that a California woman has filed a class action lawsuit against Ryobi, alleging that her recalled electric pressure washer was defectively designed, fails to perform as advertised, and continues to pose a serious risk of injury to users. The complaint was brought by Lauren Morgan in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on October 13, naming Techtronic Industries Company Limited and TTI Outdoor Power Equipment Inc., the manufacturers of the Ryobi Electric Pressure Washer, as defendants. Electric pressure washers use electric motors to generate high-pressure water streams for cleaning, offering a cleaner and quieter alternative to gas-powered units. However, Morgan's complaint is among a growing number of pressure washer lawsuits filed in recent months alleging that defective Ryobi pressure washers have caused users to suffer severe injuries following overheating and explosion incidents. Earlier this year, TTI issued a recall of the Ryobi Electric Pressure Washers, warning that certain Ryobi 2300 PSI and 2700 PSI electric pressure washers' capacitors could overheat and burst, causing parts to be forcibly ejected, leading to severe injuries for users or bystanders. Roughly 764,000 of the recalled Ryobi Electric Pressure Washers were sold through Home Depot, Direct Tools Factory Outlet stores and online between July 2017 and June 2024. At the time of the recall, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) had already received reports of more than 130 incidents where the pressure washers had overheated, resulting in at least 41 explosions and 32 injuries, including fractures to fingers, hands, faces and eyes. In her complaint, Morgan says she purchased a Ryobi 2300 PSI Electric Pressure Washer from Home Depot's website in April 2023 for about $400, believing it to be a safe and dependable product. However, Morgan argues the repair kit offered by the manufacturer was inadequate because it forces consumers to perform their own repairs instead of receiving refunds or replacements. The lawsuit also alleges that the repair kits do not guarantee the defect has been resolved, leaving consumers uncertain whether the products can ever be used safely. The complaint notes that Ryobi pressure washers are sold with a three-year limited warranty promising they are free from defects in materials and workmanship, yet Morgan claims the recall was poorly publicized, leaving many owners unaware of the safety risk and allowing defective devices to remain in use. Furthermore, Morgan alleges that the recall violates California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, which bars manufacturers from requiring consumers to fix defective products under warranty, accusing TTI of conducting a "half-hearted" recall to protect profits rather than consumers. "As a direct result of these misrepresentations, Plaintiff and Class Members purchased defective Products that failed to perform as advertised and posed a substantial risk of serious injury." -- Lauren Morgan v. Techtronic Industries Company Limited et al Morgan raises allegations of breach of express and implied warranty, negligence, unjust enrichment and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law. She seeks class action certification for all U.S. consumers who purchased the recalled Ryobi 2300 PSI and 2700 PSI electric pressure washers, along with more than $5 million in damages. The lawsuit also requests injunctive relief requiring TTI to make the recalled products safe or clearly disclose that they fail to meet safety standards, and to conduct a corrective advertising campaign while providing refunds or replacements to affected customers. [GN] TOTAL SYSTEM: Faces White FCRA Suit Over Consumer Reports --------------------------------------------------------- SABRINA WHITE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. TOTAL SYSTEM SERVICES LLC d/b/a TSYS GLOBAL PAYMENTS, Case No. 7:25-cv-00469 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 14, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff with an opportunity to contest the copy of the Consumer Report prior to taking adverse employment action depriving her of a critical opportunity to understand her rights and review, contest, explain and/or dispute the information being used against her pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant obtained information concerning Plaintiff from a Consumer Reporting Agency named First Advantage. The Defendant paid a fee for the information it obtained concerning Plaintiff. The Defendant relies on information in Consumer Reports to make decisions regarding Plaintiff, and on information and belief, Defendant relies on similar information from Consumer Reports to make decisions regarding other prospective or current employees, including, in whole or in part, as a basis for adverse employment action; such as a refusal to hire and/or termination, says the suit. The Plaintiff applied online for employment with Defendant for a remote working position in or about September of 2023. She received an email on September 26, 2023, offering her an interview with John Wylie over the phone on Sept. 27, 2023. As a direct result of the Defendant's failure, the Plaintiff was left confused and unaware of her rights moving forward, which created significant emotional distress and anxiety, says the suit. TOTAL SYSTEM SERVICES LLC is a provider of payment solutions. The company provides payment processing services, merchant services and related payment services for the financial institutions, governments and consumers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Walker Drew Moller, Esq. SIRI | GLIMSTAD 1005 Congress Ave., Suite 925-C36 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (717) 967-5529 E-mail: wmoller@sirillp.com TREND HEALTH: Washington Class Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- LAYTOYIA WASHINGTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TREND HEALTH AND REHAB OF NATCHEZ, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00109-DCB-BWR (S.D. Miss., Oct. 14, 2025) challenges Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant subjected all their hourly, non-exempt employees, including the Plaintiff and the Collective Members, to their policy of failing to properly calculate and pay the employees' overtime wages. The Plaintiff worked at the nursing home in Natchez, Mississippi, operated by the Defendant until Sept. 2025. TREND HEALTH AND REHAB OF NATCHEZ offers nursing, rehabilitation, skilled nursing, long-term care, and individualized care services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Jack Simpson, Esq. SIMPSON, PLLC 100 South Main Street Boonville, MS 38829-0382 Telephone: (662) 913-7811 E-mail: jack@simpson-pllc.com TRINSEO PLC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Trinseo PLC (NYSE: TSE) resulting from allegations that Trinseo may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Trinseo securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=13711 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On October 6, 2025, before the market opened, the Company issued a press release entitled "Trinseo Announces Strategic Operational Plans in Europe and Dividend Suspension." The press release stated that Trinseo will "permanently close its methyl methacrylate ("MMA") production operations at its Rho, Italy facility and its acetone cyanohydrin ("ACH") production operations in Porto Marghera, Italy." It also stated that Trinseo's Board had voted to "indefinitely" suspend Trinseo's dividend. On this news, Trinseo stock fell 10.9% on October 6, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. [GN] TUNDRA RESTAURANT: Schallert Sues Over Illegal Data Collection -------------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE SCHALLERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TUNDRA RESTAURANT SUPPLY, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-09723 (C.D. Cal., October 10, 2025) arises from the Defendant's installation and use of data broker software without obtaining consent in violation of the California Trap and Trace Law. According to the complaint, Defendant Tundra Restaurant uses data broker software on its website, https://www.etundra.com, to secretly collect data about a website visitor's computer, location, and browsing habits. Specifically, the Defendant has partnered with registered California Data Brokers in order to deanonymize and develop clandestine user profiles on otherwise anonymous website visitors. The Defendant has done this by installing at least one Data Broker Software Development Kit on the Website. These DBSDKs are designed to track and correlate visitors by capturing electronic impulses designed to identify them. This is accomplished through "browser fingerprinting," a process by which Data Brokers are able to ascertain the identity of a website visitor by plotting hundreds of personal identifiers, says the suit. Tundra Restaurant Supply, LLC is a Colorado limited liability company that sells restaurant and catering equipment and supplies.[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 UNCHARTERED LABS: Woulard Sues Over Direct Copyright Infringement ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID WOULARD, ATTACK THE SOUND LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, STAN BURJEK, JAMES BURJEK, BERK ERGOZ, HAMZA JILANI, MAATKARA WILSON, ARJUN SINGH, MAGNUS FIENNES, and MICHAEL MELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNCHARTERED LABS, INC., d/b/a Udio.com, and UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-12613 (N.D. Ill., October 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for direct copyright infringement, removal or alteration of copyright management information, circumvention of access controls, false copyright management information, contributory copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, violations of Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, Illinois Right of Publicity Act, and Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' practice of systematically copying and storing works by independent artists to fuel a commercial, mass-market music-generation engine. To run this mass-market music generation engine, Udio copied and maintains a centralized library of essentially all music files of reasonable quality taken from online sources without permission, together with text descriptions, using these copies and descriptions to train and operate models that produce outputs replacing licensed music on a large scale. As a result of Udio's contributory infringement and inducement, the Plaintiffs and the Classes have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm and damages, including (without limitation) lost licensing revenue and opportunities, market substitution and dilution, harm to catalog value, and loss of control over the presentation and integrity of their works. Attack the Sound LLC is a limited liability company based in Illinois. Uncharted Labs, Inc., doing business as Udio, is an artificial intelligence company, with its principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ross Kimbarovsky, Esq. Jon Loevy, Esq. Michael Kanovitz, Esq. Matthew Topic, Esq. Aaron Tucek, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 311 North Aberdeen, 3rd Floor Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 243-5900 Facsimile: (312) 243-5902 Email: ross@loevy.com jon@loevy.com mike@loevy.com matt@loevy.com aaron@loevy.com UNITED STATES: Class Cert Response Due Nov. 20 ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jones, et al., v. U.S. Department of Labor. et al., Case 1:25-cv-12653 (D. Mass., Filed Sept. 18, 2025), the Hon. Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton entered an order allowing motion for extension of time to file response/reply re motion to certify class. -- Responses due by Nov. 20, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Defendant administers federal labor laws to guarantee workers' rights to fair, safe, and healthy working conditions.[CC] UNITED STATES: Faces Singla Suit Over Civil Rights' Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Dipesh Singla, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01426-JEH-RLH (E.D. Ill., Oct. 14, 2025) seeks to address failures in the investigation of civil rights violations, obstruction of justice, and retaliation, regardless of political affiliation or belief. Due to the heightened political environment in the United States, the Plaintiff believes it is important to explicitly state that this lawsuit is motivated solely by the pursuit of justice and accountability for the alleged specific violations, and not by any political agenda or bias. The complaint seeks to initiate criminal proceedings against those who directly or indirectly protected criminals and violated Plaintiff's federally protected rights. The legal foundation for criminal proceedings is found in 18 U.S.C. sections 241-242, which criminalize deprivation of civil rights under color of law, as interpreted in United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787 (1966). The Defendant include STATE OF ILLINOIS, OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL, CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, OFFICE OF FEDERAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA), SECRETARY OF LABOR, STACY MCGUIRE, ACTING DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE OF WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION PROGRAMS DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC), STUDENT AND EXCHANGE VISITOR PROGRAM (SEVP), IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE), GOVERNOR OF ILLINOIS OFFICE, JB PRITZKER, Governor of Illinois, THE CITY OF CHICAGO, MAYOR OF CHICAGO OFFICE, BRANDON JOHNSON, Mayor of Chicago, CHICAGO POLICE SUPERINTENDENT OFFICE, LARRY SNELLING, Chicago Police Superintendent, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, COOK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, TONI PRECKWINKLE, President of the Cook County Board of Commissioners, COOK COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, THOMAS J. DART, Cook County Sheriff, ILLINOIS SECRETARY OF STATE, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION, ELBERT THOMAS, Investigator, Chicago Police Department, CHICAGO POLICE BUREAU OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS, SHRIVATSA THULASIRAM, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT (UCPD), DEAN OF THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES DIVISION (PSD), KATE BIDDLE, Dean, ETHAN MESQUITA, Dean, BARAEH LAMPERT, DEAN PSD UCHICAGO PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, PROVOST OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO HUMAN RESOURCES (UChicago HR), and DOES 1-100 (additional defendants to be identified through discovery).[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. UNITED STATES: Fails to Protect Beneficiary Rights, Class Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sioux half-breed lineal descendants, an identifiable association or group of Indians residing within the territorial limits of the United States, and the class representatives, Thomas Eugene Smith, Sheldon Peters Wolfchild, Gayle Cecile Harmon, Sharrie Lynn Roper, Patricia Ann Branden-Adan, Timothy LaBatte, and Damon Knight, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. United States, Case No. 1:25-cv-01718-CNL (Ct. of Fed. Claims, Oct. 14, 2025) alleges that the United States has failed and continues to fail to properly protect the beneficiary rights of the Sioux half-breed lineal descendants, the intended beneficiaries of the 1830 Treaty, 1854 Law and 1858 Law. According to the complaint, the result of the United States' failures is that the Sioux half-breed lineal descendants are dispossessed of their Lake Pepin Reservation and boundaries, right of occupancy, Indian title and income therefrom. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, comprising a proposed class defined as: All mixed-blood lineal descendants of the Eastern Sioux Bands (the Mdewakanton, Sisseton, Wahpeton and Wahpekute Bands) who are listed on the April 10, 1855 Lake Pepin Reservation census or entitled to be thereon, as beneficiaries of the Lake Pepin Reservation gifted by the said Bands, under the 1830 Treaty, the 1854 Law and the 1858 Law, to and for the benefit of said Sioux mixed-blood lineal descendants, with the United States as trustee. The class representatives, Thomas Eugene Smith, Sheldon Peters Wolfchild, Gayle Cecile Harmon, Sharrie Lynn Roper, Patricia Ann Branden-Adan, Timothy LaBatte, and Damon Knight individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, constituting the Sioux half-breed lineal descendants, an identifiable association or group of Indians residing within the territorial limits of the United States, file this complaint against the United States. The Sioux half-breed lineal descendants seek a peaceful adjudication of their legal claims against the United States regarding the Lake Pepin Reservation -- their 500 square mile permanent home in southeastern Minnesota along the Mississippi River and Wisconsin border. The class representatives are Sioux half-breed lineal descendants who are beneficiaries under the 1830 Treaty, the 1854 Act and 1858 Act regarding the Lake Pepin Reservation. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have been and are economically injured by the United States' continuing legal violations, causing the plaintiffs to have standing to bring their claims in the Court. The United States of America is a country primarily located in North America.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Erick G. Kaardal, Esq. Gregory M. Erickson, Esq. Vincent J. Fahnlander, Esq. Elizabeth A. Nielsen, Esq. Peter D. Linder, Esq. Maxwell D. Becker, Esq. MOHRMAN, KAARDAL & ERICKSON, P.A. 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-1074 E-mail: kaardal@mklaw.com erickson@mklaw.com fahnlander@mklaw.com nielsen@mklaw.com linder@mklaw.com becker@mklaw.com UNITED STATES: Womack Suit Seeks to Recover Back Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- GRAHAM WOMACK, AUSTIN ORTEGA, MICHAEL BACHUS, JOHN BAZA, DEDRICK CALLAHAN, ANTOINETTE ADAM,S ANTHONY CLAY, JUSTIN DILLARD, CHRISTOPHER DURAN, JOSHUA EDMON, GEORGE EXINIA, KAITLYN FORD,, HEATHER GILLELAND DUSTIN GRAHAM, JAROD GRIGSBY, MORGAN HARRISON, ROBERT HELM, CHRISTOPHER HERNANDEZ, DETRA HUMPHREY, NATHAN JOHNSON, LEVELT KING, ERIC LATHAM, KENNETH MANNING, LOGAN MCMAHILL, MARCUS MENDOZA, ZACKERY MERILATT, SHAWN O'BRIEN, MARIO ORTIZ, HANNAH PERDUE, CLAYTON PORCAR,O JONATHAN RAMIREZ, HEATHER RAY, JUAN RIVERA, ANTHONY ROBERTS, ERIC ROHRER, MERCEDES SANCHEZ, MORGAN SMITH, TYLER SMITH, DAWAYNE SPRADLIN, TEODOSIO TAFOYAJERMEL, TREADWELL THOMAS, VAN BUNDY, KALLYSTA VECELLIO, GALEN WALLS, RYAN WATTS, TIFFANY WILLIAMSON, and TORA WOMMACK, v. THE UNITED STATES, Case No. 5:25-cv-01197-G (W.D. Okla., Oct. 14, 2025) is a class action against the defendant on behalf of themselves and other employees similarly situated for a declaratory judgment, back pay, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of Defendant United States Government at the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, at the Federal Transfer Center Oklahoma City in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The Federal Transfer Center Oklahoma City is a transfer facility, temporarily housing convicted criminals before they are transferred elsewhere in the federal prison system. As such, it holds offenders of all levels, including those destined for the most secure facilities in the federal prison system. It houses approximately 1,000 male and female criminals, including violent offenders, drug dealers, rapists, murderers, and gang members.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew R. Dowdell, Esq. Austin P. Bond, Esq. Regan E. Rule, Esq. BOND GILL, PLLC 15 W. 6th St., Suite 2601 Tulsa, OK 74119 Telephone: (918) 200-9626 E-mail: abond@bondgill.com mdowdell@bondgill.com - and - Sara L. Faulman, Esq. Patrick J. Miller-Bartley, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 Facsimile: (202) 452-1090 E-mail: slf@mselaborlaw.com pmb@mselaborlaw.com UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: $5M Settlement Final Hearing Set Jan. 28 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that The University of Minnesota will pay $5 million to settle a class action lawsuit over a July 2023 data breach that exposed the personal data of millions of people. The University of Minnesota class action settlement received preliminary court approval on August 20, 2025 and covers the approximately 4.2 million people whose personal information was available in the University of Minnesota's Legacy Data Warehouse as of August 10, 2021, including anyone who was sent direct notice of the data breach by the university. Per the settlement website, the University of Minnesota settlement class may also include any applicants to the school, students, employees or university program participants from between 1989 and August 10, 2021. The court-approved website for the University of Minnesota data breach settlement can be found at UofMDataSettlement.com. University of Minnesota settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form will be able to receive a cash payment of $30 and 24 months of dark web monitoring. The cash payment, the settlement website notes, may be subject to a decrease on a pro rata, or equal share, basis, depending on the total number of valid claims filed. To submit a claim form online, class members can visit this page of the settlement website and log in with the unique class member ID found in their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, a PDF of the claim form is available to print, fill out and mail back to the address listed on the first page of the form. All settlement claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by December 24, 2025. Additionally, as part of the settlement, the University of Minnesota has agreed to enhance the security of its Legacy Data Warehouse and modernize the warehouse's data storage. A hearing is scheduled for January 28, 2026 to determine whether the University of Minnesota settlement will receive final approval from the court. Settlement benefits will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The University of Minnesota class action lawsuit claimed that the university was lax in its cybersecurity measures, allowing an unauthorized third party access and distribute online the personal information of approximately 4.2 million people, including names, addresses, Social Security numbers, identification numbers, dates of birth, email addresses, driver's licenses, phone numbers, demographic information, passports and academic, application, admission or employment information. [GN] VANCOUVER, BC: Lapu-Lapu Day Festival Victim Seeks Cert. of Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Ghoussoub of CBC News reports that a man who suffered serious injuries during the alleged attack on the Lapu-Lapu Day festival in Vancouver is seeking to certify a proposed class-action lawsuit on behalf of attendees of the event. John Lind filed the notice of civil claim in B.C. Supreme Court on Thursday, October 23 -- naming the City of Vancouver, the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCHA), and Kai-Ji Adam Lo. Lo is the man accused of driving an SUV into a crowd at the event celebrating Filipino culture, killing 11 and injuring dozens of others on April 26. The suit alleges the city and the health authority ought to have known unlawful entry into the festival, which took place on public streets, was "foreseeable." And it further alleges they ought to have known Lo posed an imminent threat to others, given recent encounters with mental health institutions and law enforcement. The documents cite the defendants' alleged "failure to identify risks posed by the Defendant Kai-Ji Adam in the months and weeks leading up to the Festival," and their "negligence in planning, security and risk assessment." "They have conducted themselves in a high-handed, wanton and reckless manner, and without regard to public safety," the proposed suit claims. According to the document, Lind suffered serious injuries as a result of the vehicle ramming -- including multiple rib fractures, a punctured spleen and lung, a lacerated kidney, and post-traumatic stress disorder. He's seeking the recovery of health-care costs, general damages, special damages, and punitive damages. 'Negligence' alleged in safety planning The 13-page notice of civil claim alleges the city was negligent in assessing the risk level of the festival, noting the event was anticipated to have twice the attendance of a previous 2024 event and was spread over a larger geographical space. According to the suit, community organization Filipino B.C. submitted a permit application for the festival, filling out the complexity level as "high." But the lawsuit claims the City of Vancouver categorized the festival as being a low complexity event, and therefore no dedicated police deployment was scheduled to patrol the festival grounds. The suit claims says that despite the festival being held on a public street, only wooden sawhorse-style barricades were deployed to block vehicle access. It says that no hostile vehicle mitigation plan was put in place, and no heavy vehicle barriers or light vehicle barriers were in place to prevent vehicles from driving into the space. The suit claims the city and health authority were negligent in not providing these barriers, given the number of attacks involving vehicles driving into crowded public events has risen in recent years -- citing high-profile cases in Nice, London, and Toronto. Handling of Lo's mental health questioned The suit also alleges the city and health authority "ought to have known that the Defendant Lo was an imminent threat to himself or others." In the days after the festival, B.C.'s Ministry of Health issued a statement saying the then 30-year-old was under the care of a VCHA mental health team and was "being supervised under the Mental Health Act" at the time of the tragedy. Lo had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and, according to the lawsuit, was a "frequent flyer" with the Vancouver Police Department and Richmond RCMP, with "a significant history of mental health interactions with various police officers." The suit alleges that despite VCHA's knowledge of his worsening mental health and increased paranoia, Lo was permitted to remain on "extended leave" from a mental health facility where he had been receiving care. It claims that two weeks prior to the festival, Lo met with his psychiatrist, who determined his mental health "appeared to be deteroriating and that his delusions appeared to be increasing ... all of this was known or knowable by the defendant VCHA." In early September, a judge found Lo was mentally fit to stand trial after a three-day hearing. At issue was not the state of Lo's mental health on April 26, but rather his present condition. None of the claims made in Lind's proposed lawsuit have been proven in court, and it has not yet been certified as a class-action proceeding. [GN] VANGUARD INVESTOR: Agrees to Settle Securities Suit for $25MM ------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit investors in Vanguard Investor Target Retirement Funds: SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL INVESTORS IN VANGUARD INVESTOR TARGET RETIREMENT FUNDS ("INVESTOR TRFS") WHO: (1) RESIDE IN THE UNITED STATES; (2) HELD SHARES OF THE INVESTOR TRFS IN TAXABLE ACCOUNTS OR IN TAX-ADVANTAGED ACCOUNTS WHERE CAPITAL GAINS FROM THE INVESTOR TRFS WERE DISTRIBUTED OUTSIDE OF THE TAX-ADVANTAGED ACCOUNTS; AND (3) RECEIVED CAPITAL GAINS DISTRIBUTIONS FROM THE INVESTOR TRFS IN 2021. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, that a hearing will be held on January 6, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable John F. Murphy, United States District Judge of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom 3-B, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of $25,000,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the Settlement Amount plus interest, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $985,000, and service awards of no more than $20,000 to each Plaintiff, or $240,000 in total, should be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, dated September 5, 2025 ("Stipulation"). The Court reserves the right to hold the Settlement Hearing telephonically or by other virtual means. You may have previously received notice of a $40 million settlement in this Action ("Prior Settlement"). The Prior Settlement was ultimately not approved by the Court due to the intervening settlement agreements that The Vanguard Group, Inc. ("Vanguard") entered into with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and certain state regulators concerning substantially the same alleged conduct ("SEC Settlement"). The SEC Settlement required Vanguard to pay $92.91 million in remediation to an SEC Fair Fund ("Fair Fund"), which will be distributed to affected investors. After the Court denied approval of the Prior Settlement, Vanguard paid an additional $40 million into the Fair Fund, pursuant to the SEC Settlement. This $25 million Settlement provides compensation in addition to the $132.91 million that will be paid to investors through the Fair Fund. This Settlement is not intended to preclude or limit Settlement Class Members' ability to participate in the Fair Fund. The SEC has not yet determined exactly who will be eligible to recover in the Fair Fund or how or when it will be distributed. All questions about the SEC Settlement or Fair Fund should be directed to the SEC. If you received capital gains distributions in 2021 from Investor TRFs that were held in a Taxable Account or in a Tax-Advantaged Account where capital gains from the Investor TRFs in 2021 were distributed outside of the Tax-Advantaged Account, your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to the 2021 capital gains distributions from those funds. If you need assistance obtaining a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Proof of Claim"), you may write to, call, or contact the Claims Administrator: Vanguard Chester Funds Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (Toll-Free) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net. You can also download copies of the Notice and submit your Proof of Claim online at www.strategicclaims.net/vanguard. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim electronically or to be received no later than February 3, 2026 by the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to share in the recovery. If you submitted a Proof of Claim for the proposed Prior Settlement in this Action, you do not need to submit a new Proof of Claim. If you are not sure whether the Claims Administrator already received a claim from you, please contact the Claims Administrator. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that it is received no later than December 16, 2025, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Stipulation. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and awards to Plaintiffs must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than December 16, 2025, by each of the following: Clerk of the Court United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse, Room 2609 601 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phillip Kim THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Lead Counsel Maeve L. O'Connor DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 66 Hudson Boulevard New York, NY 10001 Counsel for Vanguard Defendants Daniel J. Kramer PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Counsel for Trustee Defendants If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Lead Counsel: Phillip Kim THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 philkim@rosenlegal.com PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: SEPTEMBER 8, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA [GN] VIVOS XPOINT: Igloo Bunker Residents Sue Over Illegal Lease ----------------------------------------------------------- Bart Pfankuch, writing for South Dakota News Watch, reports that a new class-action lawsuit, if successful, could require the California owner of former military munitions bunkers near Edgemont to pay more than $17 million to people who rent the so-called igloos for use as homes or shelters to protect them in the case of a global catastrophe. The lawsuit filed in Fall River County Circuit Court alleges on a basic level that Vivos xPoint Investment Group, the owner of the Vivos xPoint bunker complex, uses an illegal lease that is unenforceable and violates the rights of the bunker residents. The lawsuit is similar in its claims to an earlier case filed by an individual former resident of the Vivos complex that challenged the legality of the bunker lease. That claim was upheld by a circuit court judge but has been appealed by the complex owner and is awaiting a hearing before the South Dakota Supreme Court. The new lawsuit also alleges that the investment group made "deceptive and misleading statements" by promising to provide numerous amenities at the bunker complex, most of which have never been built. It seeks a return of all money paid to Vivos by more than 150 tenants. Where weapons once sat, people now live The Vivos xPoint community includes hundreds of above-ground, earth-covered concrete bunkers that were used by the U.S. military from 1942 to 1967 to store conventional and chemical munitions in a town once known as Igloo. A large portion of the former Black Hills Army Depot munitions facility was purchased and developed in 2016 by California businessman Robert Vicino. The 2,200-square-foot bunkers are now rented as residences, mostly to survivalists, or "preppers," who want to live off the grid and be positioned to survive a global catastrophe. According to prior reporting by News Watch, the residential community located on windswept prairie land 8 miles south of Edgemont has been beset by conflicts between residents and employees, numerous lawsuits, several complaints to the state attorney general’s office and a near-fatal shooting of a complex employee by a tenant in 2024. After a grand jury review, the tenant was not charged. News Watch interviewed more than a dozen people, reviewed hundreds of pages of court records, examined emails and internal Vivos communications, filed three open-records requests and visited the Vivos site to understand the unrest that exists within the community. Records in the South Dakota Secretary of State's office show the investment group is licensed to Vicino. He is also the owner of a parent company called Vivos Group, which states on its Vivos Global Shelter Network website that it provides access to bunker complexes in South Dakota as well as at other sites in the U.S. and Europe. Vicino did not return a call from News Watch seeking comment, and his attorney, Eric Schlimgen of Spearfish, also did not return calls or an email seeking comment. In a prior interview, Vicino told News Watch that those who complain at Vivos xPoint are "bad apples" and that most tenants are happy with their treatment. Lease signed by tenants at heart of lawsuits People who live in the bunkers or have them ready to occupy do not buy them outright. Instead, they pay an upfront fee of up to $55,000 and sign a 99-year lease that governs the landlord-tenant relationship. The 14-page lease and an accompanying long list of community rules became the subject of lawsuits after they were used as the basis to evict several bunker residents who then lost the right to occupy the bunkers despite paying the upfront fees and a monthly service fee. The lease requires tenants to use their own money to make the bunkers habitable, including installing basic utilities. The lease then allows Vivos to evict tenants while retaining the value of those improvements, said J. Scott James, a Custer attorney representing plaintiffs. James previously told News Watch that Vivos finds ways to evict tenants and then re-leases their bunkers with a requirement that new tenants still pay the upfront and monthly fees. James said the class-action lawsuit is a natural progression in the legal claims against Vivos xPoint, so far upheld in court, that now makes it possible for all bunker renters to seek financial remedies. The case was filed prior to the ruling by the Supreme Court on the first case because Scott said tenants told him that the complex ownership was offering or was about to offer tenants a new lease that would have reduced or eliminated their rights to sue. Just as in the case before the Supreme Court, the class-action lawsuit argues that the Vivos lease is illegal because it is "illusory," a legal term that essentially means the complex ownership can change the contract at any time without consideration or approval of the tenants. "The unfettered ability of Vivos to unilaterally change material provisions of the lease, as well as the ability to evict (tenants) . . . makes the lease illusory, unlawful and unenforceable," the lawsuit states. The case makes a further separate argument that the lease is invalid because it does not comply with a South Dakota law that requires landlords to provide basic utilities, services and upkeep. The existing lease, which requires tenants to install their own electricity, water, plumbing, sewer and communication services, would therefore be illegal under state law, James said. Amenities promised but not provided The new lawsuit also raises consumer protection arguments in that Vivos has failed to follow through on promises made to tenants before they signed the lease, James said. "The way Vivos marketed this development and these bunkers to these folks contained a lot of deceptive material, and so they were made a lot of promises," he said. "People were given tours and told that there's a medical facility, and there's not a medical facility. They were told, 'You're going to get a gymnasium and a laundry, and all this kind of stuff is going to happen.'" James said none of those amenities have been provided, even several years after the promises were made. He added that trash pickup, security services and road maintenance have been spotty over the years. The new lawsuit was filed Sept. 16 on behalf of six people who leased bunkers in the complex, including two who live there and four others who live elsewhere but lease a bunker to be ready if needed. If class-action status is granted, as many as 150 bunker lessees would qualify for settlement money unless they specifically opt out, James said. He said that as word of a possible class-action case spread through the Vivos complex, he has already heard from more than 40 tenants interested in knowing more about it. Millions in remedies sought for tenants The lawsuit seeks a return of all money paid to Vivos by tenants, including the up-front lease fees ranging from $25,000 to $55,000 per tenant, the money tenants spent on improving the bunkers to make them habitable and the monthly common area amenity fees. It also calls for payment of attorney fees and possible punitive damages. After doing a rough calculation, James estimated Vivos could have to pay the tenants more than $17 million if the lawsuit is upheld, which would be in addition to any attorney fees or damages. If Vivos cannot pay, the lawsuit contends that the tenants would then be allowed to take ownership of the leased bunkers and land beneath them, James said. [GN] WAKPAMNI LAKE: Wood Sues Over Illegal Rent-A-Tribe Lending Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM WOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAKPAMNI LAKE COMMUNITY CORPORATION, WAKPAMNI LAKE COMMUNITY CORPORATION II, BLACK HAWK FINANCIAL D/B/A MYFUNDINGCHOICES.COM, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00117-RGJ (W.D. Ky., October 15, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for declaratory judgment and violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendants' engagement in a rent-a-tribe scheme wherein non-tribal payday lenders use a Native American tribe in order to avoid usury laws by invoking sovereign immunity. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to recover all amounts paid on her and other Class members' loans, as well as their costs and attorneys' fees. Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation is a corporation organized under the law of the Oglala Tribe. Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation II is a corporation organized under the law of the Oglala Tribe. Black Hawk Financial, doing business as myfundingchoices.com, is an operator of a lending website, doing business in Kentucky. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Lockaby, Esq. Abigail Catherine Wearden, Esq. Amanda M. Lockaby, Esq. LOCKABY PLLC 476 East High Street, Suite 200 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 263-7884 Facsimile: (859) 406-3333 Email: mlockaby@lockabylaw.com awearden@lockabylaw.com alockaby@lockabylaw.com - and - Matthew J. Langley, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (773) 554-9354 Email: matt@almeidalawgroup.com WATSON CLINIC: Agrees to Settle 2024 Data Breach Suit for $10MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that Watson Clinic will pay $10 million to settle a class action lawsuit over a February 2024 data breach during which an unauthorized third party accessed the sensitive personal information of approximately 280,278 people. The Watson Clinic class action settlement received preliminary court approval on October 14, 2025 and covers all United States residents who were notified of the data breach by Watson Clinic. Per the settlement agreement, Watson Clinic settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form will be able to receive a cash payment for leaked digital images; reimbursement for "ordinary" out-of-pocket losses, "extraordinary" losses and time spent dealing with the effects of the data breach; and a residual cash payout from the remainder of the $10 million settlement fund. Any class member who had one or more images of any portion of their body published on the dark web due to the Watson Clinic data breach will be able to receive varying cash payment amounts based on what kinds of photos were leaked: -- $75,000 for those who had at least one image published containing their full face (including their eyes) and an exposed sensitive area; -- $40,000 for those who had at least one image published containing part of their face (below the eyes) and an exposed sensitive area; -- $10,000 for those who had at least one image published containing an exposed sensitive area and none of their face, or for those who had at least one image published containing their face (including eyes) and a sensitive portion of their body covered by undergarments; -- $7,500 for those who had at least one image published containing part of their face (below the eyes) and a sensitive portion of their body covered by undergarments; -- $5,000 for those who had at least one image published containing a sensitive portion of their body covered by undergarments and none of their face; and -- $100 for those who had at least one image published containing any part of their body that did not include their face or a sensitive area. Watson Clinic class members do not need to submit a claim form to receive reimbursement for the leak of digital images due to the data breach, court documents state. The class action settlement agreement also states that class members will be able to claim up to $500 in reimbursement for "ordinary" out-of-pocket losses related to the data breach, which may include costs associated with freezing/unfreezing credit reports with any credit reporting agency, credit monitoring or other mitigative costs and miscellaneous expenses incurred in relation to other ordinary out-of-pocket losses such as postage, mileage, copying, fax, notary and long-distance telephone charges. Class members may also, if applicable, claim up to $6,500 in reimbursement for identity theft, identity fraud, falsified tax returns or other misuses of their personal data resulting from the Watson Clinic data breach. In order to receive any form of reimbursement from the Watson Clinic settlement, class members must submit reasonable documentation of each loss they seek to claim, as well as their name and current address, a brief description of each loss (if the nature of the loss isn't apparent in the documentation) and evidence that each loss is fairly traceable to the data breach. Class members may not attempt to claim any loss that has already been reimbursed by another source, and any loss, cost or expenditure they seek to claim must have been incurred on or after January 26, 2024, settlement documents state. Those claiming reimbursement for extraordinary losses may also submit a claim for up to five hours spent dealing with the effects of the data breach, reimbursed at a rate of $25 per hour. Such claims must be supplemented with a brief description of the actions taken in response to the data breach and the amount of time associated with each action, per court documents. The settlement agreement notes that all loss and time reimbursement options may be subject to a decrease on a pro rata, or equal share, basis, depending on the number of valid claims filed. Finally, all class members will be able to submit a claim for a residual cash payment from the remainder of the settlement fund after image payments and reimbursements are made. These payments will be made on a pro rata basis, and the court estimates their value may be up to $50. To receive any settlement benefits, class members must submit a timely, valid claim form by mail or online through the Watson Clinic class action settlement website, once it is available. According to the preliminary approval order for the Watson Clinic settlement, class members will have until February 5, 2026 to submit a claim. Watson Clinic has also agreed, as part of the settlement, to implement increased cybersecurity measures in its digital systems and business practices over the course of three years following the settlement's final approval. A hearing is scheduled for March 9, 2026 to determine whether the settlement will receive final approval from the court. Settlement benefits will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval has been granted and any appeals have been resolved. The Watson Clinic class action lawsuit claimed that the healthcare provider was negligent in its data security, allowing an unauthorized third party to gain access to 280,278 current and former patients' sensitive and personally identifiable information. The compromised data included names, birthdates, addresses, Social Security numbers and other government identifiers, financial account information, driver's license numbers and medical information such as diagnoses, treatments and medical record numbers, the case said. [GN] WEST VIRGINIA: Violates Constitutional Rights, Kaso Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- PHILIP KASO, STEPHEN BASHAM, and RODERICK PATTON, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JAMES L MITCHELL, in his official capacity as Superintendent of West Virginia State Police, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00603 (S.D. W.Va., October 14, 2025) seeks injunctive and declaratory relief to redress Defendant's violation of Plaintiffs' established constitutional rights. The complaint is a civil rights class action challenging the constitutionality of the provision of W. Va. Code Ann. Sec. 15-12-2 (o) which requires individuals listed on West Virginia's Sex Offense Registry to pay an annual $125 fee wherein failure to pay the fee will result in a property lien against the registrant. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all other so situated citizens of West Virginia, allege that the challenged statutory requirement violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution by requiring a punitive fine. They collectively object to being fined annually for life. The Plaintiffs allege that fee requirement of the law is unconstitutional, both on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs, because it compels Plaintiffs, and all individuals so required, to pay an annual punitive fine to register under the Sex Offense Registration Act, a non-punitive civil regulatory schema, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Plaintiffs further allege that the statute fails to make provisions for undue financial hardship and indigency that the inability to pay the fee violates due process and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. James L. Mitchell is sued in his capacity as the Superintendent of the West Virginia State Police, which leads the state agency responsible for enforcement of Sex Offense Registration Act and the statute in question.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Larwence King, Esq. NARSOL P.O. Box 25423 Raleigh, NC 27611 Telephone: (919) 480-2551 Ext. 702 E-mail: attorney@narsol.org - and - Lonnie Simmons, Esq. Dipiero Simmons, Esq. MCGINLEY & BASTRESS, PLLC P.O. Box 1631 Charleston, WV 25326 Telephone: (304) 342-0133 E-mail: Lonnie.Simmons@dbdlawfirm.com WESTON TABLE: Evans Suit Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Weston Table, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-12531 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 14, 2025) alleges that Perfect failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, Westontable.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. The Plaintiff is legally blind and a member of a protected class under the ADA. Westontable.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by the Defendant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 914-9694 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Montefusco Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ THOMAS MONTEFUSCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-08805 (N.D. Cal., October 15, 2025) is a collective action that arises out of Defendant's systemic failure to compensate its employees for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked at the appropriate overtime rate, in willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, and common law. The Plaintiff and the putative collective members consist of current and former customer service representatives, universal agents, or similar positions, who were compensated on an hourly basis. Throughout the relevant period, the Representatives routinely worked 40 hours or more per week before accounting for their off-the-clock work. When the off-the-clock work is included, the Representatives, even those Representatives who were scheduled and paid for only 40 hours per week, worked over 40 hours per week without the required overtime premium for all time worked over such number of hours, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant remotely as a universal agent from approximately October 2023 to April 2025. Williams-Sonoma, Inc. is an American publicly traded consumer retail company that sells kitchenware and home furnishings.[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 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com WIRED NYC: General Pretrial Management Entered in Fernandez Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCOS A. FERNANDEZ FRANCISCO, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WIRED NYC LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-07220-JAV-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management: All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. The Plaintiff filed the complaint on August 29, 2025. Plaintiff served defendant on September 9, 2025 (Dkt. 6), making defendant's answer due September 30, 2025. Although that date has come and gone, defendant has not filed an answer to the complaint and plaintiff has not requested a certificate of default. Accordingly, the Court entered an order that, if the Defendant has not answered or otherwise responded to the complaint before Oct. 31, 2025, plaintiff shall, on that date, either file a stipulation granting defendant additional time or apply for entry of default. Once a discovery schedule is issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Wired is a full-service electrical contracting, service, and maintenance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ppAyJu at no extra charge.[CC] WPP PLC: To Defend Securities Class Action Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- Steve McClellan of MediaPost reports that WPP will vigorously defend a class action lawsuit brought by U.S. shareholders earlier this month, the company has confirmed. The suit, which alleges violations of U.S. securities laws, was filed in U.S. District Court (Southern District-New York) on October 9 by lead plaintiff Jack Marty, "individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated." In addition to WPP, individual defendants named in the suit include former CEO Mark Read, Chief Financial Officer Joanne Wilson, and WPP Media CEO Brian Lesser. WPP will vigorously defend a class action lawsuit brought by U.S. shareholders earlier this month, the company has confirmed. The suit, which alleges violations of U.S. securities laws, was filed in US District Court (Southern District-New York) on October 9 by lead plaintiff Jack Marty, "individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated." In addition to WPP, individual defendants named in the suit include former CEO Mark Read, Chief Financial Officer Joanne Wilson, and WPP Media CEO Brian Lesser. The suit was filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired WPP common shares between February 27, 2025 and July 8, 2025. It was on July 9 that WPP issued a so-called "profit warning" when it announced that market conditions had "deteriorated" significantly and that it was downgrading its full-year organic revenue outlook to a decline of between 3% to 5% from the previous guidance of flat to down 2%. The following day on July 10 the company announced that Cindy Rose would succeed Read as CEO on September 1. The suit alleges that WPP issued misleading statements about the company's projected performance prior to the profit warning, including expressing "confidence in the company's continued efforts to revitalize and simplify its media division to obtain new wins and retain clientele." The suit contends that the company misled or concealed "material adverse facts concerning the true state of WPP's media arm." The suit noted the 18% drop in the value of WPP common shares on the day it issued its profit warning. The suit does not cite a specific figure for monetary damages sustained by shareholders, but does seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. WPP has not yet filed its legal response to the court complaint. However, a company spokesperson issued this statement: "WPP is aware of a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York asserting violations of US securities laws. No court has ruled that we have violated any laws, and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously." [GN] ZETA GLOBAL: Court Consolidates Ayerdi and A.P. Actions ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE AYERDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ZETA GLOBAL HOLDINGS CORP. and DOTDASH MEREDITH, INC., Case No. 25 Civ. 5780 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Engelmayer entered an order: (1) Granting the Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate Ayerdi and A.P. and, as to the consolidated case, (2) Appointing Mason and Lowey Dannenberg as interim co-lead counsel, and (3) Appointing the identified counsel from Spiro Harrison & Nelson, Mason, and Israel David executive committee members. The actions are consolidated under the caption In re Zeta Global Data Privacy Litigation, 25 Civ. 5780 (PAE). All filings and submissions shall be made under the docket number 25 Civ. 5780 (PAE) only. The Court directs the parties to confer and jointly file by Oct. 21, 2025 a proposed schedule for the filing of an amended complaint and briefing for any motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions. In sum, because judicial economy and convenience strongly favor consolidation and there is no opposition or evident risk of prejudice, the Court finds consolidation appropriate. On July 14, 2025, Diane Ayerdi filed a putative class action against the Defendants, on behalf of all residents of California who opened an email newsletter containing the LiveIntent pixel and/or opened an email newsletter from Dotdash containing the LiveIntent pixel during the relevant statute of limitations periods. Zeta is an American marketing technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I45haT at no extra charge.[CC] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***