251103.mbx

251103.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, November 3, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 219 Headlines 3M CO: Continues to Defend AFFF Exposure Suit in British Columbia 3M CO: Continues to Defend AFFF Property Contamination Class Suit 3M CO: Continues to Defend PFAS Class Suit in British Columbia 3M CO: Continues to Defend PFAS Class Suit in Connecticut 3M CO: Continues to Defend PFAS Class Suit in Missouri 3M CO: Continues to Defend PFAS Class Suit in Montana 3M CO: Continues to Defend PFAS Class Suit in Ohio 3M CO: Continues to Defend PFAS Class Suit in Quebec 3M CO: Continues to Defend PFAS Class Suit in Virginia 3M COMPANY: Parties in Zache Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines A & S METAL: Aparicio Seeks to Recover Drivers' Unpaid Wages ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Electrolyte Drinks "Unsafe," Chowdhury Says ABERASH INC: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, Barnes Says ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS: Discovery Bid in "Hodges" Partially Denied AIDA COCONUT: Montoya Seeks Unpaid Regular, OT Wages Under FLSA AIDA COCONUT: Quinones Seeks to Recover Unpaid Regular, OT Wages ALBERT CORPORATION: Wurm Privacy Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Court Dismisses "Won" Without Prejudice ANGLO ASIAN: Faces Lalabekyan Suit Over Wrongful Imprisonment APOLLOMD BUSINESS: Faces Flint Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ARAMARK CAMPUS: Wrightman Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ARHAUS INC: $6MM Settlement Final Court OK Hearing Set Feb. 19 ARLOZOROV9 INC: Sawer Files Personal Injury Suit in California ATHENA TECHNOLOGY: M&A Probes Merger With Ace Green Recycling BAUSCH HEALTH: Restrains Competition for Xifaxan, Suit Alleges BAXTER INT'L: Electrical Workers Fund Files Securities Class Suit BAYHEALTH MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Sensitive Info, Dunlop Says BELKORP AG: Asborno Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info BLUE CROSS: Sets Up Class Action Settlement 2025 Program BLUE RIDGE: Beshears Balks at Mass Layoffs Without Advance Notice BLUEHOOK TOOL: Pope Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages BOLD STRATEGIES: Metz Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California BONAFIDE HEALTH: M.M. Sues for Invasion of Privacy BOSE CORPORATION: Espinoza Sues Over Discriminative Website BRAD RAFFENSPERGER: Additional Oral Argument Set for Dec. 3 CARVANA LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Bomar-Lindsay Says CERTIS USA: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Ocampo Suit Says CHESAPEAKE, VA: Kelley Files Suit Over Humanitarian Violation COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: $332MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 12 D & Z PROPERTIES: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Le Suit Says DELOITTE CONSULTING: Settlement in "Pannozzi" Has Prelim Court OK DESIGNER BRANDS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Singer Files FDCA Suit in D. Nev. DJGN LEXINGTON: Landis Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Under FLSA, KWHA DM AVO: Faces Osorio Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages DM AVO: Fails to Pay Restaurant Staff OT Wages, Pino Says DUBAI LOUNGE: Martinez Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL DULCICH INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Bergeson Says DUNKIN' BRANDS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Says EASTER SEALS: Hernandez Date Breach Suit Removed to E.D.N.C. ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims FASTLY INC: Court Grants Partial Dismissal of Securities Suit FEDEX GROUND: Ct. Partially OKs Notice Form in "Blake" FEDEX GROUND: Ryan Systems, et al., Can't Intervene in "Claiborne" FIRST TRUST: Rudd Balks at Unlawful Sale of Structured Notes FLIPCAUSE INC: Unlawfully Withholds Charitable Funds, Suit Says FLORIDA: Judge Certifies Transgender Inmates Accommodation Suit FORTINET INC: Rhode Island Retirement Sues Over Share Price Drop GLOBAL FEDERAL: Discloses Clients' Info to LinkedIn, Kiyabu Claims GLOBAL HOME HOSPICE: Edmon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GLOBAL IT: Jefferson Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Consultants GRACE MANAGEMENT: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT: Underpays Leasing Professionals, Williams Says GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE: Conway Suit Removed to S.D. Texas GRIFFIN'S LANDSCAPING: Portilla Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages GS ADMINISTRATORS: Vaccaro Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. HAWTHORN SENIOR: Ortiz Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. HP INC: Fails to Provide Headset Software Support, Odinsson Says HUEL INC: Protein Powder Contains Harmful Metals, Eghbali Says HUEL LTD: Sarayli Sues Over Vegan Protein Powder's False Ads HUNTER DOUGLAS INC: Goins Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama HUUUGE GLOBAL: Pless Illegal Gambling Suit Removed to E.D. Tenn. HYATT CORPORATION: Velasco Suit Removed to S.D. California ILLIANA TRANSIT: Faces Hernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Indiana IMPACT OUTSOURCING: Boykin Balks at Layoffs Without Prior Notice INSTITUTE OF CULINARY: Mingott Balks at Unprotected Personal Info INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL: Mackeigan Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Calif. JAMES HARDIE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud JAVVY COFFEE COMPANY: Osborn Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York JEFFREY RICHARDSON: Blosser Seeks Approval of $1.25MM Settlement JOONGANGILBO USA: Lee Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Newspaper Staff JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Class Action Suit for Fixing Interest Rates KALSHIEX LLC: Yee Sues Over Unlawful Sports Gambling Platform KEURIG DR PEPPER: Settles K-Cups Class Action Suit for $1.85MM KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Kotex Click Tampons LAFAYETTE ASSOCIATES: Gonzalez Seeks Unpaid Wages for Dishwashers LDASH7 LLC: Cheng Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York LEXXOUR HOME CARE: Jason Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LGS STAFFING: Flores Suit Removed to C.D. California LOCATEL STORES: Wohlstein Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida LUCID GROUP: Lopez Sues Over Blind User-Inaccessible Website MAC-CLARK RESTAURANTS: Faber Suit Transferred to N.D. New York MASALA CAFE: Vuppala Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers MAVIS TIRE SUPPLY: Webb Files Suit in S.D. New York MBM MANAGEMENT: Faber Suit Transferred to D. Kansas MERCK & CO: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Benson Suit Alleges MOLO SOLUTIONS: Underpays Carrier Sales Specialists, Seales Says MONSANTO COMPANY: Phelps Sues Over Herbicide Roundup Exposure NATIONAL NOTARY: Hawkins Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Tal-Mason Suit Removed to S.D. Florida NEW YORK, NY: A.M. Files Suit Over Bullying and False Claim OURARING INC: Stephenson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER: Appeals Court Order in Golden Suit to E.D.N.Y. PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Green Seeks to Clarify Class Notice Order PERUZZI IMPORTS INC: Litka Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania PESI INC: Class Cert. Order Entered in Manza Lawsuit PFP INDUSTRIES: Jackson Suit Seeks FLSA Certification PHH MORTGAGE: Fact Discovery in Graham Due April 14, 2026 PORSCHE AG: Klein Renewed Bid for Class Cert. Tossed PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS: Johnson Seeks More Time to File Class Reply QUAD/GRAPHICS INC: Class Settlement in Shaw Gets Initial Nod QUICK TRIP: Hazel Employment Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. RACK ROOM SHOES: Class Cert Filing in Smith Due March 13, 2026 RANCHO MESQUITE: Court Extends Stay of Houghton Suit Until Nov. 14 REGENCE BLUESHIELD: Court Certifies Settlement Class in E.S. Suit RICOH USA: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to Jan. 26, 2026 RUSSELL ROAD: Cosey Class Suit Removed to D. Nev. RVB INVESTMENT: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Feb. 2, 2026 S&P GLOBAL: Bid to Seal Docs in CUSIP Suit Partially Granted S&P GLOBAL: DFG's Bid to File Discovery Docs Under Seal OK'd SACRAMENTO, CA: Class cert Bid in Hood Due May 18, 2026 SALEM TOWNSHIP HOSPITAL: Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Conditional Certification of Class Sought SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Anderson Seeks Attys' Fees & Reimbursement SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Investors Appointed as Lead Plaintiffs SAZERAC COMPANY: Hernandez Files Suit in S.D. Florida SENTARA HEALTHCARE: Carter Seeks to Amend Certified Class SENTARA HEALTHCARE: Court Modifies Oct. 2 Class Cert Order SERGIO ALBARRAN: Pinchi Seeks Provisional Class Certification SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Seeks to Certify Class Action STARK COUNTY AMBULANCE: Settlement in Buckley Suit Gets Initial Nod STARTEK USA: Harris Seeks Final Approval of Settlement STATE FARM: Class Cert Filing in Hardy Extended to Apr. 15, 2026 STEVEN SANDERS: Class Cert Reply Brief Filing Extended to Nov. 7 SUMMIT NATIONAL: Class Settlement in Purnell Gets Initial Nod SUN-MAID GROWERS: Filing for Class Certification Due Feb. 20, 2026 SUNO INC: Woulard Alleges Illegal Use of Copyrighted Recordings SUNSTONE HOTEL: Faces Baysic Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. SYMMETRY FINANCIAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Dec. 3 SYNEOS HEALTH: Class Settlement in Scurlock Gets Final Nod TAKATA AIRBAG: Class Cert Hearing Date Set in Prod. Liability Suit TALLAHASSEE MEMORIAL: Sheward Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri TARGET CORP: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Boyd Due April 13, 2026 TAYLOR FARMS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Vila Die April 15, 2026 TEA DATING ADVICE: Karam Suit Transferred to C.D. California TEKNIPLEX INC: Miller Files Fraud Suit in E.D. Pa. TELIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims TENNESSEE GAS: Bid for Leave of Court to File Reply Brief OK'd TEXAS: United States Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class THREADING SALON: Norris Sues Over Discriminative Property TIDEWATER PROPERTY: Floyd Seeks Conditional Cert. of Action TONYA ANDREWS: Bid to Dismiss Andrews Suit Tossed w/o Prejudice TOWN SPORTS: Breeze Sues Over Discriminative Property TRANS UNION: Faces Laccinole Class Suit Over Consumer Reports TRANSDEV SERVICES: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Feb. 20, 2026 TRINITY HEALTH: Faces Settle Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime UNION HOME: Fink Files Personal Injury Suit in N.D. Ohio UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Seeks Class Cert Order Partial Reconsideration UNITED GROUND: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge UNITED GROUND: Tene Labor Suit Seeks Class Certification UNITED HEALTHCARE: More Time to File Class Cert Bid Sought UNITED NATURAL: Seeks Evidentiary Hearing on Class Cert Bid UNITED NATURAL: Sills Suit Seeks Leave to File Response Sur-Reply UNITED NETWORK: Bid to Seal Class Cert Support Docs OK'd UNITED NETWORK: Hearing for Summary Judgment Set for Nov. 6 UNITED STATES: Molina Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Declarations UNITED STATES: Swaso's Bid for Appointing Counsel Nixed UNIVERSITY OF OREGON: Class Cert Reply Due Feb. 5, 2026 US LEGAL: Garza- Prevatti Files ADA Suit Over Unfair Surcharges VENEZUELA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Zahn Due Jan. 5, 2026 VIA RENEWABLES: Clark's Bid for Class Certification Tossed VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY: Faw Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action VILLARA CORPORATION: Ortega Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WALGREEN CO: Ferguson Files Fraud Suit in N.D. Calif. WALMART INC: Case Management Order Entered in McEnheimer Suit WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Seeks Class Cert Bid Oral Argument WEST SHORE HOME: Silvis Sues Over Unsolicited Calls WILKES UNIVERSITY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Bufford Says WILMINGTON TRUST: Henry Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement WM WHOLESALE LLC: Hernandez Files Suit in C.D. California WORKERS COMPENSATION: Ramos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WORLD ONE LAW: Class Cert Bid Filing in Palmer Due Dec. 1, 2026 YALE NEW: Class Settlement in Nathanson Gets Initial Nod ZKTECO USA: Faces Jiang Class Suit Over Biometrics Collection ZOETIS INC: Court Narrows Claims in Hartney TAC ********* 3M CO: Continues to Defend AFFF Exposure Suit in British Columbia ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the AFFF exposure class suit in the British Columbia Supreme Court. In December 2023, a putative class action was filed against 3M Canada, 3M Company, and other defendants in the British Columbia Supreme Court on behalf of Canadian individuals alleging personal injuries from exposure to AFFF imported into Canada for firefighting and other applications. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, and the recovery of health care costs incurred by provincial and territorial governments. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] 3M CO: Continues to Defend AFFF Property Contamination Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from AFFF property contamination class suit in the British Columbia Supreme Court. In September 2024, the Canadian Minister of Transport filed, and in December 2024 amended, a third-party contribution and indemnification action against 3M Canada, 3M Company, and other defendants in connection with a pending putative class action filed in British Columbia Supreme Court in April 2024 alleging property contamination from AFFF as a result of firefighting training at the Abbotsford International Airport outside Vancouver. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] 3M CO: Continues to Defend PFAS Class Suit in British Columbia -------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from PFAS class suit in the British Columbia Supreme Court. In June 2024, the province of British Columbia, Canada, filed a putative class action in the British Columbia Supreme Court against 3M Canada, 3M Company, and other defendants. The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all provincial and territorial governments in Canada, including all municipalities and other local governments responsible for drinking water systems. The province alleges that the defendants manufactured, marketed, distributed and sold PFAS-containing products, including AFFF, knowing that they would contaminate the environment and threaten human health. The lawsuit asserts claims for public nuisance, private nuisance, negligent design, failure to warn, conspiracy, and breaches of the Competition Act. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages for the costs incurred in: (1) the investigation, remediation, treatment, assessment, and restoration of lands, waters, sediments, and other natural resources contaminated by PFAS; and (2) the investigation, testing, monitoring, treatment, and remediation of PFAS contamination of drinking water, wastewater, storm water discharges, and biosolids. It also seeks punitive damages and disgorgement of profits. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] 3M CO: Continues to Defend PFAS Class Suit in Connecticut --------------------------------------------------------- 3M Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from PFAS class suit in Connecticut. In Connecticut, in June 2024, 3M and numerous other defendants were sued in a putative class action brought by individual firefighters and several firefighter unions, alleging exposure to PFAS from certain turnout gear worn by the class members. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in April 2025. 3M filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint in June 2025, and that motion is being briefed. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] 3M CO: Continues to Defend PFAS Class Suit in Missouri ------------------------------------------------------ 3M Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the PFAS contamination class suit in Missouri. In Missouri, in April 2024, 3M was added as a defendant to a pending putative class action brought by individuals alleging PFAS contamination of their properties and drinking water from metal plating operations in southeastern Missouri. In October 2024, the court denied 3M's motion to dismiss. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] 3M CO: Continues to Defend PFAS Class Suit in Montana ----------------------------------------------------- 3M Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the PFAS class suit in the Montana District Court. In Montana, in April 2025, 3M, DuPont, and Chemours were named in a putative nationwide class action in Montana District Court, brought on behalf of all entities who bought turnout gear from the named defendants alleging injuries from exposure to PFAS in the turnout gear. The lawsuit alleges claims under RICO and state conspiracy, product liability, consumer protection, and deceptive trade practices laws. On September 23, 2025, the court denied Defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the District of Delaware. Motion to dismiss briefing had been stayed pending a ruling on the transfer motion and will now be resumed. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] 3M CO: Continues to Defend PFAS Class Suit in Ohio -------------------------------------------------- 3M Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the PFAS class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In October 2018, 3M and other defendants, including DuPont and Chemours, were named in a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio brought by the named plaintiff, a firefighter allegedly exposed to PFAS chemicals through his use of firefighting foam, purporting to represent a putative class of all U.S. individuals with detectable levels of PFAS in their blood. In March 2022, the court certified a class of "[i]ndividuals subject to the laws of Ohio, who have 0.05 [ppt] of PFOA (C-8) and at least 0.05 ppt of any other PFAS in their blood serum." In November 2023, the Sixth Circuit issued an order vacating the class certification decision and remanding the case with instructions that the district court dismiss the case and later denied a motion for rehearing en banc. In March 2024, the district court vacated the class certification order and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. In June 2024, 3M was named as a defendant in a new putative nationwide class action by the same named plaintiff who filed the Ohio suit that was dismissed and is described above. The new suit was brought against only 3M and DuPont entities and seeks to establish a putative class of anyone subject to the laws of Ohio or subject to the law of states that recognize the claims for relief filed by plaintiffs with blood serum levels of 2 ppb or more of PFOS and PFOA (combined) manufactured by defendants. 3M was served with the suit in July 2024 and subsequently filed a motion to transfer the case to the AFFF MDL, which was denied in October 2024. In October 2024, 3M filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] 3M CO: Continues to Defend PFAS Class Suit in Quebec ---------------------------------------------------- 3M Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the PFAS water contamination class suit Quebec Superior Court. In July 2024, a putative class action was filed against 3M Canada, 3M Company, and other defendants in the Quebec Superior Court on behalf of public water suppliers and private well owners in Quebec located near sites where defendants allegedly manufactured, used, transported, processed, distributed or sold PFAS. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages for the testing and treatment of drinking water as well as punitive damages. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] 3M CO: Continues to Defend PFAS Class Suit in Virginia ------------------------------------------------------ 3M Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the PFAS class suit in federal court of Virginia. In Virginia, in August 2024, 3M was named as a defendant in a case alleging that plaintiff's decedent, a civilian firefighter, died from cancer allegedly caused by exposure to PFAS from turnout gear. A co-defendant removed the case to federal court. In April 2025, 3M was named as a defendant in a similar case in Virginia, which was removed to federal court by another defendant. In August 2025, 3M filed motions to transfer both cases to the AFFF MDL. Plaintiffs' motions to remand remain pending in both matters. In September 2025, 3M removed three additional firefighter turnout gear cases to Virginia federal court and is seeking transfer of those cases to the AFFF MDL. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] 3M COMPANY: Parties in Zache Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zache, et al., v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00648 (M.D. Fla., Filed Oct. 15, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports --class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery -- class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability. 3M is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, and consumer goods.[CC] A & S METAL: Aparicio Seeks to Recover Drivers' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE LUIS APARICIO, Plaintiff v. A & S METAL RECYCLING INC.; ALEXANDER SCOTT; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV30285 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., October 16, 2025) is a class action seeking penalties under California Labor Code due to Defendants' alleged violations of numerous provisions of the state labor law. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation, provide rest and meal periods, furnish wage statements, provide accurate and complete payroll records, pay wages upon separation of employment, reimburse business-related expenses and costs, provide proper and correct/accurate sick pay, and provide proper rest facilities and suitable seating. The Plaintiff started working for A&S as a driver on or around 2024. He was classified as an hourly, non-exempt employee and stopped working due to injuries in mid-August 2024. A & S Metal Recycling, Inc. is a scrap metal processor in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harout Messrelian, Esq. MESSRELIAN LAW INC. 101 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 1450 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 484-6531 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983 E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Electrolyte Drinks "Unsafe," Chowdhury Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- PARESA CHOWDHURY, LILY GENDUSO, JACQUELINE CLAY, and ASHLYNN HALE individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-11530 (N.D. Ill., September 23, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated who purchased Pedialyte's electrolyte drinks and powders containing sucralose. The Defendant markets the products to health-conscious consumers as safe and healthy hydration beverages and powders for children and adults. The Defendant represents that Pedialyte is the "#1 Brand Recommended by Doctors" and that the brand has been "backed by science since 1966." However, sucralose, the sugar alternative in the products, has been shown to be genotoxic, cause and worsen diabetes and obesity, and increase the risk for cardiovascular diseases and cancer, among other harms. The Defendant's marketing implies that the products are safe to consume, especially for adults and children when sick and/or dehydrated. And Defendant does not disclose to consumers the harmful effects of sucralose, does not disclose that the sucralose in the products always breaks down into sucralose-6-acetate, and does not disclose the harmful effects of sucralose-6-acetate, says the suit. The Defendant allegedly engaged in unlawful business practices and has violated (i) the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act; (ii) California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and False Advertising Law; (iii) Massachusetts' Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices Act; (iv) Massachusetts' General Laws Chapter; and (v) New York General Business Law. Plaintiff Chowdhury has purchased the products for four years. The Plaintiff's most recent purchase was in November 2023 when she purchased the Pedialyte Electrolyte Powder from Amazon while in Illinois. Abbott Laboratories is an American multinational medical devices and health care company with headquarters in Abbott Park, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: mroberts@bursor.com ABERASH INC: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, Barnes Says ------------------------------------------------------- ZHANE BARNES, IMANI BARNES, APRIL ALSTON, and DESARINE JAMES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ABERASH, INC. A/K/A ABERASH, LLC T/A SIGNATURE LOUNGE A/T/A DC SIGNATURE LOUNGE A/T/A SIGNATURE LOUNGE DC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03694 (D.D.C., October 17, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the District of Columbia Wage Payment Act. During the Class Period, the Defendants perpetrated common and class-wide violations of Named Plaintiffs and each Class Member's wage payment rights under the federal and state laws by: a) misclassifying Named Plaintiffs and Class Members as non-employee contractors; b) failing to pay Named Plaintiffs and Class Members any wages for the hours Defendants employed Named Plaintiffs and Class Members to work as dancer entertainers within the Club; and c) charging Named Plaintiffs and Class Members mandatory per shift "Tip Outs" from tips Named Plaintiffs received from Defendants' customers each shift Named Plaintiffs and Class Members worked as dancer entertainers within the Club, says the suit. Plaintiff Zhane Barnes was employed by the Defendants to work as a dancer entertainer within the Club from about February 2024, until the date Defendants terminated his employment in April 2025. Aberash, Inc. operates under the trade names registered with the District of Columbia: (a) Signature Lounge; (b) DC Signature Lounge; and (c) Signature Lounge DC. Aberash has held a liquor and/or tavern license under the misnomer Aberash, LLC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (240) 839-9142 E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS: Discovery Bid in "Hodges" Partially Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Lacunya Hodges, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Administrative Systems, Inc., et al, Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-92-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss.), United States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Greenville Division, denied in part Plaintiff's motion for limited discovery. This action was filed by Plaintiff on June 23, 2025. It is brought as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216 on behalf of the following: All current and former hourly, nonexempt employees of Defendants who earned incentives for picking up an extra shift, shift differentials, or sign-on bonuses during weeks he or she worked more than forty hours and were improperly paid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff is a citizen of Mississippi residing in Coahoma County where she was at all times relevant employed by Care Givers, LLC, a limited liability company offering nursing home services at its sole facility in Flowood, Mississippi. Care Givers is alleged by Plaintiff to be one of 17 different LLCs who each own and operate a different nursing home in Mississippi who have been named a defendant to this action. In addition, Plaintiff also names as defendants 25 other LLCs who each own and operate a different nursing facility in the state of Louisiana. Plaintiff asserts that each of the Mississippi and Louisiana nursing homes is owned operated and managed in whole or in some part by members of what is described as the Beebe family, associates of the family, non-family members hired by the family, and or trusts with some relationship to the family. In addition, Plaintiff names Administrative Systems, Inc., a Mississippi corporation she alleges provides administrative and payroll services, including the computation and payment of overtime to each of the Mississippi and Louisiana nursing home LLCs. Plaintiff also names Medico LLC, whom she alleges performs Human Resources related functions for the Mississippi and Louisiana nursing homes, as well as serving as a 401k-plan sponsor in which all the nursing home LLCs participate. In a nutshell, Plaintiff alleges, variously, that despite the fact of their being separate legal entities, all of the Defendants are one large company that is owned, managed, and controlled by the Beebe family or those the family has hired; that Defendants are joint employers of Plaintiff; and or they are a unified, integrated business or enterprise. Among other indicia, Plaintiff alleges the Defendants shared offices, principal places of business, officers, managers, and directed the work concurrently and jointly of Plaintiff and all other hourly, nonexempt employees of Defendants. On August 29, 2025, Care Givers filed its answer. On September 2, 2025, all nursing home Defendants, other than Care Givers, LLC, and the non-nursing home Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and, as for the Louisiana nursing home Defendants, also for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). Based on the motions to dismiss alleging lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Local Uniform Civil Rule 16(b)(3)(B) was triggered. In compliance with the Local Rule, the undersigned stayed this matter on September 3, 2025. On September 4, 2025, Plaintiff moved to lift the discovery stay by virtue of two motions—one addressed allowing discovery of Defendants, and one addressed allowing issuance of subpoenas to financial institutions. Plaintiff's discovery motion largely focuses on Plaintiff's request to permit jurisdictional discovery to combat the arguments raised in Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. Inasmuch as Care Givers did not challenge subject matter or personal jurisdiction and Plaintiff's motions to lift the stay are limited to facts concerning only those issues, it is unclear whether Plaintiff nevertheless seeks jurisdictional discovery of Care Givers, but to the extent she does, that request will be denied, as there is no present controversy over whether this court has jurisdiction, subject matter or personal, over Plaintiff's claims against Care Givers It does appear however that in Section E of her memorandum in support of her motion to lift stay to conduct jurisdictional discovery that she requests that the Court allow general discovery untethered to jurisdictional facts to proceed against Care Givers. Plaintiff argues in support that since Care Givers has not joined the motions to dismiss filed by all other Defendants challenging the Court's jurisdiction, and because the statute of limitations continues to run for opt-in claimants in FLSA collective actions until those claimants file their consent forms with the Court, the stay of discovery should be lifted as to Care Givers. She contends that without lifting of the stay, potential claimants against Care Givers face a severe prejudice of missing their respective statutes of limitations due, presumably, to an inability of counsel, without discovery, to identify them for promoting opt ins. In its memorandum in support of its opposition, Care Givers argues the stay should not be lifted to allow Plaintiff to proceed with discovery against it, because irrespective of whether it has FLSA liability to Plaintiff or other similarly-situated present or former employees, proceeding with discovery to potentially establish that collective group and Care Givers liability to them will potentially result in the impossible or nearly impossible task of conducting multiple discovery periods. In short, in a case with forty-five Defendants each alleged to be intertwined and whose alleged wrongful conduct is based on substantially the same factual allegations, it is impossible to, with any judicial efficiency, proceed with separate but overlapping discovery tracks. On the other hand, while the stay will not be lifted to allow unfettered discovery as to Care Givers, the potential prejudice faced by Plaintiff as a result of the stay may be assuaged by requiring Care Givers to respond to a single interrogatory from Plaintiff that reads as follows: Produce the names and last known address, if any, of your current and former hourly, nonexempt employees who earned incentives for picking up an extra shift, shift differentials, or sign-on bonuses during weeks he or she worked more than forty hours from October 22, 2022, to the present. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's request to lift the stay as to Care Givers is denied, with the one exception outlined. A copy of the court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7bshts from PacerMonitor.com AIDA COCONUT: Montoya Seeks Unpaid Regular, OT Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS M. MONTOYA, and other similarly situated individuals v. AIDA COCONUT GROVE LLC, COLIBRI 4 HOLDINGS LLC, d/b/a AIDA, MARCO BARDONE, and EDUARDO P. GAVILAN, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-24833 (S.D. Fla., Oct. 21, 2025) seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after January 2024, (the "material time") without being adequately compensated, the suit says. AIDA COCONUT GROVE LLC is a Mexican seafood restaurant. The individual Defendants Marco Bardone and Eduardo P. Gavilan are the owners/partners/ and managers of Aida Coconut Grove.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com AIDA COCONUT: Quinones Seeks to Recover Unpaid Regular, OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- SILVIA M. QUINONES, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. AIDA COCONUT GROVE LLC, COLIBRI 4 HOLDINGS LLC, d/b/a AIDA, MARCO BARDONE, and EDUARDO P. GAVILAN, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-24838 (S.D. Fla., October 21, 2025) seeks to recover from Defendants regular and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Quinones was employed as a non-exempt, full-time restaurant employee from approximately January 15, 2025 to September 1, 2025, or 33 weeks. She performed as a line cook and a cleaning employee. The complaint alleges that Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages, at the rate of time and a half her regular rate, for every hour that she worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA. Aida Coconut Grove is a Mexican restaurant located in Coconut Grove, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com ALBERT CORPORATION: Wurm Privacy Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as CHARMING WURM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALBERT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 25-014288, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on October 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-62138 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff seeks to represent all persons and entities that reside in Florida whose caller identification service was transmitted a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls when Albert Text Message Sales Calls were made to them since July 1, 2021. Albert Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Culver City, California.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Dora F. Kaufman, Esq. LIEBLER, GONZALEZ & PORTUNDO Courthouse Tower-25th Floor 44 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 379-0400 Facsimile: (305) 379-9626 E-mail: dfk@lgplaw.com - and - Randall W. Edwards, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3823 Telephone: (415) 984-8700 Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 - and - Elizabeth L. McKeen, Esq. Danielle Nicole Morris, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660-6429 Telephone: (949) 823-6900 Facsimile: (949) 823-6994 AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Court Dismisses "Won" Without Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Caonissa Won, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Amazon.com Services LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 21-CV-2867 (NGG) (LKE) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the Defendant's motion for reconsideration and dismissed the case without prejudice. On August 28, 2025, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order overruling in part and adopting in part Magistrate Judge Laura K. Eshkenazi's Report and Recommendation. The Court held that Won lacked standing to bring her suit and provided 60 days to propose a new class representative. The Court stated that Won had not suffered an injury sufficient to confer standing under Article III of the Constitution because she was better off under Amazon's leave policy that she was challenging. The Court explained, how much Amazon pays the employee during their leave determines whether there is a concrete injury for standing. Considering the period of leave that Won alleged in her amended complaint, the Court concluded that she is likely to be financially better off under the policy. The Court therefore departed from Magistrate Judge Eshkenazi's recommendation and found that Won is an improper representative. After determining that Won lacked standing, the Court adopted the approach of another court in this circuit that conditionally certified a class because the sole named plaintiff was an improper representative due to potential for a conflict of interest with class members. Thus, it directed Won's counsel to propose at least one plaintiff to serve as class representative within 60 days. Subject to that directive, however, the Court granted Won's motion to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3). Amazon moved for reconsideration, maintaining that once the Court concluded Ms. Won lacked Article III standing, it should have dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Amazon urged the Court to follow Second Circuit precedent that requires a named plaintiff to demonstrate standing before the inquiry shifts to a class action analysis under Rule 23. Amazon contested that in cases like this one, where a court determines that it lacks jurisdiction over the named plaintiff's claim, there is only one thing left to do - dismiss the case. The Court directed Won to file a response and identify caselaw where the sole named plaintiff lacked standing but the court granted leave to identify plaintiff(s) with standing prior to certification of the class. In her response, Won cited cases to support the proposition that changing or adding additional class representatives is a routine feature of class action litigation. She also cited cases that have declined to dismiss suits in light of the parties' and public's interest in a dispute being resolved in a timely manner. Won's response brief also attempted to shape the factual record, mentioning two new periods of leave that she maintained were undisputed and well established in the record. Unlike the period of leave that formed the basis for the Court's August Order, she contended that these two shorter periods would have unambiguously left her better off had Amazon's challenged leave policy not applied. She therefore concluded that they were sufficient to convey standing. Won admitted, however, that she did not specifically allege these instances of leave in her amended complaint and that the Court denied her request to amend her complaint a second time. In its reply brief, Amazon took issue with Won introducing these leave periods. It pointed out that she admitted having never plead those leaves and that she never raised them during class certification proceedings. Amazon noted that she only amended those responses to disclose them more than a year after discovery had closed. Under Rule 37(c)(1), it claimed that she was precluded from using that information. The Court agreed with Amazon on two grounds. First, the new periods of leave that Won sought to introduce were not properly before the Court. Second, her lack of standing necessitated the case's dismissal. Regarding Won's newly raised periods of leave, the Court noted that standing is at heart a jurisdictional prerequisite to a federal court's deliberations. Won's attempt to raise the two new periods of leave violated three principles. First, she did not mention the leave periods in either her amended complaint or class certification briefing. Second, Won failed to timely disclose the new periods of leave in her interrogatory responses. Third, Won raised new arguments on reconsideration that she failed to raise in her class certification brief. The Court stated, For each of these three reasons, the court declines to consider Won's argument that the two newly raised periods of leave provide her with Article III standing. Accordingly, the court affirms its conclusion from the August Order that Won has failed to establish Article III standing to move forward as class representative. Regarding dismissal without prejudice, the Court noted that "the threshold question in every federal case" is "whether the plaintiff has made out a case or controversy between herself and the defendant within the meaning of Art. III. A proposed class representative must demonstrate standing before the inquiry shifts to a class action analysis under Rule 23. The Court determined that if the court determines that a named plaintiff lacks standing to represent a putative class, dismissal of the claims is the appropriate disposition. The Court stated, Amazon has met the standard for this court to grant its motion for reconsideration and to dismiss this case without prejudice. The Court noted that this ruling does not doom Won's case, as the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Act has no statute of limitations under 38 U.S.C. Section 4327(b). The Court stated, And if properly presented to the court, Won's two newly raised periods of leave might very well provide her standing. But they were not properly presented. So at least for now, her lawsuit cannot move forward. Accordingly, the Court granted Amazon's motion for reconsideration and vacated in part its August Order. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B6JyKg from PacerMonitor.com ANGLO ASIAN: Faces Lalabekyan Suit Over Wrongful Imprisonment ------------------------------------------------------------- GAYANE LALABEKYAN, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. MOHAMMAD REZA VAZIRI, Case No. 8:25-cv-03466-DKC (D. Md., Oct. 21, 2025) involves the role of Vaziri in aiding and abetting the false imprisonment and torture of 120,000 Armenians, including 30,000 children, in Artsakh (also known as Nagorno-Karabakh), an enclave in the South Caucasus. On December 12, 2022, the government of Azerbaijan orchestrated a blockade of the only road connecting the 120,000 ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh with the outside world, thereby preventing anyone and anything from entering or exiting. The blockade caused a humanitarian catastrophe in Nagorno-Karabakh, depriving the Armenian population of access to food, medicine, heat, electricity, and normal living conditions for 286 days. The United States, the United Nations, the European Parliament, and numerous other states and global institutions called upon Azerbaijan to end its blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh. Numerous international human rights organizations -- including Human Rights Watch, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and Amnesty International—warned that Azerbaijan is committing ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh and that the risk of genocide against the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh is acute. The International Court of Justice ordered Azerbaijan to lift the blockade. In its 2024 fact-finding report, "Why Are There No Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh?", Freedom House documents how ethnic Armenians were subject to regular attacks, intimidation, deprivation of basic human rights, and forced displacement. The report explains that Azerbaijan's actions were part of a comprehensive, methodically implemented strategy to remove the ethnic Armenian population and erase their historical and cultural presence in the region. On September 19, 2023, Azerbaijan launched a military attack on Nagorno Karabakh, targeting civilian objects including apartments, schools and hospitals. On September 24, 2023 -- after having illegally blockaded the population for 286 days -- Azerbaijan finally opened the Lachin Corridor, but only in one direction: out. Within a few days, Azerbaijan ethnically cleansed the entire population of Artsakh Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh. Although the immediate consequence of Azerbaijan's military campaign was ethnically cleansing the Armenian population from Nagorno-Karabakh, the harm inflicted by Azerbaijan did not stop at the border. As a direct result of Azerbaijan's military assault, the civilian population was left starved, isolated, and defenseless, the suit contends. Families were forced to abandon their homes, places of worship, and centuries-old communities without the ability to return. Many fled to Armenia with nothing but what they could carry, and others have since dispersed to other countries, facing the trauma of exile, cultural erasure, and the permanent loss of their homeland. These events orchestrated by Azerbaijan continue to cause deep psychological injury, loss of identity, and intergenerational trauma. Indeed, Azerbaijan has actively facilitated and publicized the destruction of Armenian homes and cultural sites in Nagorno-Karabakh, disseminating footage of these acts through media platforms in a calculated effort to demoralize the Armenian population, asserts the suit. Defendant Vaziri is the president and CEO of Anglo Asian Mining PLC and the controlling principal of RV Investment Group Services, LLC. Vaziri seeks, through companies he directs and controls, access to precious metal deposits existing in Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh). He has a direct relationship with the hereditary president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, and had a direct relationship with his father, Heydar Aliyev, the prior president of Azerbaijan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Baskin, Esq. ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP 1717 K Street NW Washington, DC 2006 Telephone: (202) 857-6000 Facsimile: (202) 857-6395 E-mail: andrew.baskin@afslaw.com jackson.toof@afslaw.com - and - Aram Ordubegian, Esq. Annie Stoops, Esq. ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP 555 South Flower Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 629-7400 Facsimile: (213) 629-7401 E-mail: aram.ordubegian@afslaw.com annie.stoops@afslaw.com Karnig Kerkonian - and - Elizabeth Al-Dajani, Esq. KERKONIAN DAJANI LLP 1555 Sherman Avenue, Suite 344 Evanston, IL 60201 Telephone: (312) 416-6180 Facsimile: (312) 604-7815 E-mail: kkerkonian@kerkoniandajani.com ealdajani@kerkoniandajani.com - and - Laura A. Seferian, Esq. BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP 71 South Wacker Drive, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 624-6423 E-mail: lseferian@beneschlaw.com APOLLOMD BUSINESS: Faces Flint Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ LEE FLINT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APOLLOMD BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC and MERCY HEALTH REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, LLC d/b/a MERCY HEALTH LORAIN HOSPITAL, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05439-SEG (N.D. Ga., September 23, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted defendants with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information that was impacted in a data breach. Between July 21, 2025, and September 11, 2025, Defendant ApolloMD notified its clients of a data security incident that may have resulted in unauthorized access to and acquisition of information pertaining to some of its Clients patients. The Defendants owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the private information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendants solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached their duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. As a result of Defendants inadequate digital security and notice process, the Plaintiff and Class Members' private information was exposed to criminals, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendants for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of third-party beneficiary contract. ApolloMD Business Services, LLC is a physician practice management company based in Georgia that offers multispecialty business and health services to hospitals and health systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (771) 772-3086 E-mail: cturner@milberg.com ARAMARK CAMPUS: Wrightman Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Matthew Wrightman, on his own behalf and on the behalf for all others similarly situated v. ARAMARK CAMPUS LLC, ARAMARK SERVICES, INC. dba ARAMARK CORPORATION, a Foreign for Profit Corporation, JAMES TARANGELO, an individual, and MELINDA ALTAMIRANO, an individual, Case No. 25-2-26003-8 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Oct. 22, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02073. The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for: violations of the Washington Minimum Wage Act; violations of the Washington Industrial Welfare Act and WAC 296-126-092 related to meal and rest breaks; willful withholding of wages in violation of the Washington Wage Rebate Act and Seattle Wage Theft Ordinance (Seattle Municipal Code 14.20.020); and failure to reimburse employees for expenses in violation of the Seattle Wage Theft Ordinance, the Wage Rebate Act, and Washington common law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Anne Philpot, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 274-6400 Email: anne.philpot@morganlewis.com - and - Eric Meckley, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 442-1000 Email: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com ARHAUS INC: $6MM Settlement Final Court OK Hearing Set Feb. 19 -------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that Furniture store Arhaus agreed to pay $6 million to resolve claims that it advertised misleading sales by displaying fictitious original prices and significant discounts from inflated reference prices. The Arhaus settlement benefits California consumers who purchased one or more products from Arhaus' website between April 2, 2020, and Sept. 18, 2024, where the product listed both a current sale price and a second, higher price (with or without a strike-through) and who have not received a refund or credit for their purchase. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim that Arhaus engaged in false advertising by displaying fake original prices for its products and advertising significant discounts from inflated reference prices. As a result, consumers were misled into believing they were receiving substantial discounts on purchases, the plaintiffs contend. Arhaus is a home furnishings company that sells furniture, decor, rugs and more. Arhaus has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $6 million class action settlement to resolve the false discount allegations. Under the terms of the Arhaus class action settlement, class members can receive a cash payment or store credit gift card based on the amount they paid for their qualifying purchases. No payment estimates are available. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Dec. 19, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Arhaus settlement is scheduled for Feb. 19, 2026. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by Dec. 19, 2025. Who's Eligible California residents who purchased one or more Arhaus products on its website between April 2, 2020, and Sept. 18, 2024, where the purchased product listed both a current sale price and also referenced a second, higher price and who have not received a refund or credit for their purchases. Potential Award Varies. Proof of Purchase Arhaus order number(s) and/or proof of purchase, such as a receipt, credit card statement or other document showing the purchase of a qualifying product. 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 12/19/2025 Case Name Moses, et al. v. Arhaus Inc., Case No. 8:24-cv-00728-FMO-ADS, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California Final Hearing 02/19/2026 Settlement Website ArhausSettlement.com Claims Administrator Moses, et al. v. Arhaus Inc. Settlement c/o ILYM Group Inc. P.O. Box 2031 Tustin, CA 92781 (855) 735-2641 Class Counsel Kevin J. Cole KJC LAW GROUP APC Defense Counsel Phillip J. Eskenazi BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP [GN] ARLOZOROV9 INC: Sawer Files Personal Injury Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arlozorov9, Inc. The case is captioned as SHARIKA SAWER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ARLOZOROV9, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-02588-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal., September 30, 2025). The Plaintiff brings personal injury claims against the Defendant. Arlozorov9, Inc. is a provider of diagnostic and medical treatment services in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR AND FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0710 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Scott Robert Drury, Esq. DRURY LEGAL, LLC 6 Carriage Lane Highwood, IL 60040 Telephone: (312) 358-8225 Email: scott@drurylegal.com ATHENA TECHNOLOGY: M&A Probes Merger With Ace Green Recycling ------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Athena Technology Acquisition Corp. II (OTCMKTS: ATEK) related to its merger with Ace Green Recycling, Inc. Upon completion of the proposed transaction, Athena shareholders will receive stock in the combined company subject to an exchange ratio. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/athena-technology-acquisition-corp-ii/ . 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] BAUSCH HEALTH: Restrains Competition for Xifaxan, Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- KPH HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. A/K/A KINNEY DRUGS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAUSCH HEALTH COMPANIES INC., BAUSCH HEALTH IRELAND LTD., SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD., SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., and ACTAVIS LABORATORIES FL, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00544 (D.R.I., Oct. 21, 2025) claims against the Defendants for anticompetitive conduct in the market for Xifaxan (TM) (rifaximin) in violation of Sections 1 and of the Sherman Act The case involves an unlawful agreement among the Defendants to restrain competition for Xifaxan and its generic equivalents and Bausch's monopolization of the market, enabling it to charge supracompetitive prices. The active ingredient of Xifaxan, rifaximin, is a broad-spectrum antibiotic used since 1987 for treating various gastrointestinal ailments. The compound of rifaximin was patented in 1982. Bausch markets Xifaxan 550 mg, the only rifaximin product available on the market to treat Irritable Bowel Syndrome with Diarrhea (IBS-D). Xifaxan is also indicated for the treatment of overt hepatic encephalopathy (HE) recurrence in adults and for travelers’ diarrhea in children in a 200 mg dosage. In 2024, Bausch's annual sales of Xifaxan in the U.S. were approximately $1.99 billion, and nearly all were sales of the 550mg dosage. Bausch currently charges more than $2,000 for a 14-day regimen of Xifaxan. The price of Xifaxan is so high because Bausch exploited a weak patent portfolio and filed patent infringement suits against potential generic manufacturers to prevent competition that would have resulted in lower prices. Bausch's patent portfolio is weak, because the 1982 patent covering the active ingredient of Xifaxan expired long ago, and Bausch relies on secondary patents that are narrow in scope. These secondary patents, or follow-on patents, claim specific polymorphic forms or methods of treating disease. Bausch's secondary patents have been invalidated by federal courts, says the suit. When Teva's predecessor developed a generic Xifaxan product and filed the first Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking approval to launch a competing generic product, Bausch sued for patent infringement. Bausch and Teva later entered an unlawful reverse payment agreement to settle the patent infringement suit and allocate the market. Bausch agreed to pay Teva to delay entering the market with 550 mg generic Xifaxan, and Teva agreed to drop its ANDA litigation and patent challenge and to stay out of the market from September 2018 until as late as January 2028. Bausch also agreed not to compete with a future Teva generic product by not launching its own unbranded product, otherwise known as an authorized generic (AG). Bausch's payment to Teva was worth more than $300 million to Teva. Bausch and Teva also included additional anticompetitive provisions in their settlement as a means of deterring other generic manufacturers from entering the market. The rate of generic substitution is not materially affected by the number of entrants, but the generic price decreases as the number of entrants increases. The Defendants' conduct therefore results in damages to the Plaintiff and members of the direct purchaser class in the form of overcharges they paid for Xifaxan. As a result of Bausch's and Teva's unlawful conduct, a generic version of Xifaxan 550 mg is still not available seven years after the unlawful agreement with Teva, and more than three years after the Federal Circuit confirmed that key Bausch patents are invalid. Plaintiff and members of the direct purchaser class will likely continue to pay artificially high, monopoly prices for Xifaxan through January 2028 or beyond, the suit alleges. KPH is the assignee of McKesson Corporation who directly purchased Xifaxan during the class period. KPH has suffered antitrust injury as a result of the anticompetitive conduct alleged herein. Bausch Health Companies Inc. is a global, diversified American-Canadian pharmaceutical company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brooks R. Magratten, Esq. Stanley F. Pupecki, Esq. PIERCE ATWOOD LLP One Citizens Plaza, 10th Floor Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 490-3422 E-mail: bmagratten@pierceatwood.com spupecki@pierceatwood.com - and - Michael L. Roberts, Esq. Sarah E. DeLoach, Esq. Erich P. Schork, Esq. Stephanie E. Smith, Esq. Joshua Zuckerman, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM US, PC 1920 McKinney Ave., Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (501) 821-5575 E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us sarahdeloach@robertslawfirm.us erichschork@robertslawfirm.us stephaniesmith@robertslawfirm.us joshzuckerman@robertslawfirm.us - and - Dianne M. Nast, Esq. Joseph N. Roda, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 923-9300 Facsimile: (215) 923-9302 E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com jnroda@nastlaw.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1133 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (917) 438-9102 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com BAXTER INT'L: Electrical Workers Fund Files Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRICAL WORKERS PENSION FUND, LOCAL 103, I.B.E.W., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC., JOSE E. ALMEIDA, BRENT SHAFER, JOEL T. GRADE, JAMES K. SACCARO, BRIAN STEVENS, HEATHER KNIGHT, and CLARE TRACHTMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-12672 (N.D. Il., October 16, 2025) is a class action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Baxter common stock between February 23, 2022 and July 30, 2025, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint relates that Baxter mislead investors by promoting its Novum IQ Large Volume Pump (Novum LVP) as safe while concealing serious defects that posed risks of severe injury and death. Before launching in the U.S., Baxter claimed it had resolved issues from the Canadian rollout and assured investors of a smooth launch. CEO Jose Almeida reinforced this narrative, despite the devices suffering from recurring, life-threatening malfunctions that Baxter failed to correct. Safety concerns regarding Novum LVP began to surface on April 7, 2025, when a Missouri news outlet reported serious safety issues relating to inaccurate infusion rates with the Novum LVPs based on information from a whistleblower at a local hospital system. Weeks after the whistleblower report, on April 24, 2025, Baxter sent customers a warning letter about a potential underinfusion risk associated with the Novum LVP, disclosing only one serious injury linked to the issue. On July 14, 2025, Baxter issued a second warning reiterating an underinfusion risk along with an additional risk of overinfusion. It also revealed it had received 79 reports of serious injury, and two reports of patient deaths related to Novum LVP. On July 31, 2025, the true extent of the safety issues was revealed when Baxter announced the suspension of all new Novum LVP sales. On this news, Baxter stock dropped 22.4%, closing at $21.76 on July 31, 2025. This complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants misled investors by failing to disclose that: (a) the Novum LVP suffered systemic defects that caused widespread malfunctions, including underinfusion, overinfusion, and complete non-delivery of fluids, which exposed patients to risks of serious injury or death; (b) Baxter was notified of multiple device malfunctions, injuries, and deaths from these defects; (c) Baxter's attempts to address these defects through customer alerts were inadequate remedial measures, when design flaws persisted and continued to cause serious harm to patients; (d) as a result, there was a heightened risk that customers would be instructed to take existing Novum LVPs out of service and that Baxter would completely pause all new sales of these pumps; and (e) based on the foregoing, Baxter's statements about the safety, efficacy, product rollout, customer feedback and sales prospects of the Novum LVPs were materially false and misleading. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's stock, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. The Plaintiff acquired Baxter common stock during the Class Period. Baxter is a global company that develops, manufactures, and markets medical products used in hospitals and other healthcare facilities. Individual Defendants Almeida, Shafer, Grade, Stevens, Saccaro, Knight, and Trachtman held positions with the Company, and possessed the power and authority to control the contents of Baxter's reports to the SEC, as well as press releases and presentations to securities analysts, money portfolio managers and institutional investors, i. e., the market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carol V. Gilden, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 200 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 2375 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 629-3737 Facsimile: (312) 357-0369 E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com - and - Steven J. Toll COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com - and - Francis P. McConville, Esq. Connor C. Boehme, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: fmcconville@labaton.com cboehme@labaton.com BAYHEALTH MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Sensitive Info, Dunlop Says --------------------------------------------------------------- SALLY CANNON DUNLOP, ADAM BUDD, and LINDSAY BEILER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BAYHEALTH MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Defendant, Case No. N25C-10-167 FJJ (Del. Sup., October 16, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information about its current and former patients, including Plaintiffs. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. The cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII/PHI. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class' PII/PHI in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. Bayhealth Medical Center, Inc. is a healthcare system based in Dover, Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dean R. Roland, Esq. R. Grant Dick IV, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. 1000 North West St., Suite 1500 P.O. Box 1680 Wilmington, DE 19899-1680 Telephone: (302) 984-3816 E-mail: droland@coochtaylor.com gdick@coochtaylor.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Cassandra P. Miller, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com BELKORP AG: Asborno Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN ASBORNO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BELKORP AG, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-at-01409 (E.D. Cal., October 17, 2025) is a class action against Belkorp for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former job applicants and employees' and their beneficiaries' personally identifiable information and protected health information. On or about September 29, 2025, Belkorp filed official notice of a hacking incident with the Office of the California Attorney General. Based on the Notice, Belkorp detected unusual activity on some of its computer systems on April 26, 2025. In response, the company conducted an investigation which revealed that an unauthorized party had access to certain company files between April 18, 2025 and April 26, 2025. Yet, Belkorp waited five months to notify the public that they were at risk. As a result of this delayed response, the Plaintiff and Class Members had no idea for five months that their private information had been compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address Belkorp's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained, and its failure to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class Members of the types of information that were accessed, and that such information was subject to unauthorized access by cybercriminals. Belkorp, headquartered in Modesto, California, is a John Deere dealership with eight locations in California that serves many customers in California and surrounding states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine Ybarra, Esq. Neil Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S Flower St, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 297-3807 E-mail: cybarra@sirillp.com nwilliams@sirillp.com BLUE CROSS: Sets Up Class Action Settlement 2025 Program -------------------------------------------------------- Mark Swartz, writing for theboronewspaper.com, reports that the BCBS Class Action Settlement process is one of the most controversial settlements in the U.S. healthcare system, which has a 2.8 billion dollar amount in recent history. The claims of the company unlock fully distributed within the markets, which limit United States competition to maintain higher insurance premiums here in the health care system. The litigation of the settlement process in recent time was found in the U.S. District Court in Alabama under the Northern District by the presence of Chief Judge David Proctor. Under the settlement process, BCBS Class Action Settlement creates a particular structure for their operation to upgrade and publicly promote a better health-related insurance market. The reforms on the given prospect always claim better opportunities for the healthcare providers, which also address systematic issues that can cause years of overpricing of the insurance and underpayment. The primary objective of the settlement process is to keep millions of patients in hospitals across the USA while also alleviating the suffering of healthcare professionals, all within the constraints of limited market costs. The relief from this injunctive system has a value of over 17 billion dollars under the settlement here, which accounts for ensuring better customer services with fair pricing in the comparative market opportunity. The main key to restoring the logical reasoning within the medical insurance market in the USA is to decrease the decade-long implementation process of insurance agreements, which actually created the problem in the health care economy. BCBS Settlement 2025 Overview Organization Blue Cross Blue Shield Association Program Name BCBS Class Action Settlement 2025 Country USA Total Amount $2.8 billion (cash) + $17 billion (reforms) Payment Start Date Between December 2025 and early 2026 Payout Mode ACH Transfer, PayPal, or Check Eligibility Period July 2008 to October 2024 Pending Status Final court approval Category Government Aid Official Website https://www.bcbssettlement.com/ BCBS Settlement Fund Distribution In this particular settlement structure in the USA, a fund of 2.8 billion is being distributed among healthcare providers and medical professionals in the existing market. The other 1.78 billion is divided between the hospitals and various medical facilities. While considering the situation at hand, 152 million dollars were reserved for the physician and the healthcare professional, but the rest of the amount was allocated for the administrative process and payout. On August 19, 2025, the settlement process in the USA code created the 3 million potential members who are to share the fund. The total payment depends on the number of healthcare providers and the claims made by patients, which will affect the market value of BCBS. Eligibility Criteria for BCBS Class Action Settlement -- The settlement providers offered the health care services and the other aspects in this insured system for the patients within the timeline of July 2008 and the October 2024. -- In the USA the physicians and the hospital systems and the clinic at the main organisation for the insurance provider. -- Claimants must have submitted valid claims on or before July 29, 2025. -- The claim process of validity and authenticated systems should be before July 29 2025. -- The process is for those who are not under any settlement from the previous cases. -- Most eligible participants on this programs of the settlement should not afford in the exclusion list from the providers of welfare. Documents Needed for the BCBS Settlement Application -- Proof of healthcare providers service. -- BCBS payout records within 2008 and 2024. -- Tax identification details for claimant. -- Contact and mailing proof. -- Banking information. BCBS Settlement Payment Structure Recipient Fund Payout Estimated Payment Type Allocation Basis Range Method Up to Several Hospitals $1.78 Volume of thousand & Clinics Billion Claims dollars ACH / Check Physicians Individual ACH / & Medical $152 services $500- PayPal / Staff billion provided $10,000 Check Injunction Valued Market – & Compliance at $17 level Non-cash Internal Reforms billion impact benefit improvements How to Apply for the BCBS Settlement -- Login the official website: www.bcbsprovidersettlement.com -- Click on the "Submit a Claim" option -- Fill out all most required details on provider name, tax ID, and claim options -- Add needed documentation -- Submit the claim by July 29, 2025 -- Save confirmation details for further information. How to Check Your BCBS Settlement Claim Status -- Log in to www.bcbsprovidersettlement.com -- Go to "Check My Claim" option -- Enter Unique Claim ID -- Review claim progress and estimated payment date -- Contact the Settlement Administrator by dialing (888) 452-3095 -- Email can be sent to info@bcbsprovidersettlement.com. New Update On BCBS Class Action Settlement Until the date of October 2025 The USA-based court final judgement on this procedure of payment will start its distribution by the end of 2025 or the earliest of 2026. JND Legal Administration will logically verify the climbing process and the overall fund transfer. The people are to be advised to observe the website and maintain their payment information to avoid delays. FAQs When will fund payment begins? Payments might begin between December 2025 and early 2026. Who are the claimants eligible to having compensation? Hospitals, clinics, and professionals with BCBS-insured from 2008-2024. Where can I check payment updates? Visit www.bcbsprovidersettlement.com and use your Claim ID. [GN] BLUE RIDGE: Beshears Balks at Mass Layoffs Without Advance Notice ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tyler Beshears, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Blue Ridge Power, LLC, Pine Gate Renewables, LLC, and ACT Power Services, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-835 (W.D.N.C., October 22, 2025) seeks statutory remedies due to Defendants' violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, and other similarly situated former employees who worked for Defendants and who were terminated without cause as part of, or as the result of, mass layoffs or plant closings ordered by Defendants on or about October 17, 2025 and within 30 days of that date, who were not provided 60 days advance written notice of their terminations by Defendants as required by the WARN Act. Plaintiff Beshears was employed by the Defendants at a Senior Quality Manager and was not assigned to a specific work site. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants until his termination on or about October 17, 2025. Blue Ridge Power, LLC is a North Carolina liability company formed on March 19, 2020. Blue Ridge Power was created as a spin-off from the Engineering, Procurement, and Construction division of Pine Gate Renewables, LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Modla, Esq. CROMER BABB & PORTER, LLC 1418 Laurel Street, Suite A Post Office Box 11675 Columbia, SC 29211 Telephone: (803) 799-9530 Facsimile: (803) 799-9533 E-mail: Jake@CromerBabb.com BLUEHOOK TOOL: Pope Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Derreck Pope, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bluehook Tool Company LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00280 (S.D. Tex., October 21, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to pay proper overtime wages to Plaintiff and numerous other individuals. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime that is required by law. In addition to his unpaid overtime, Plaintiff Pope also makes a claim for unpaid wages, as Bluehook did not pay him his day rate at all for some of the work that he performed toward the end of his tenure with the Defendant. Plaintiff Pope worked for Bluehook as a fishing tool supervisor from August 2024 until September 2025. Pope's duties included going to the wellsites of Bluehook's customers and using tools and his expertise to retrieve equipment and items that have fallen into oil wells. Bluehook Tool Company LLC provides fishing and wellbore intervention services in Texas and Louisiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 10099 Houston, TX 77206 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com BOLD STRATEGIES: Metz Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bold Strategies, Inc. The case is styled as Paul Metz, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Bold Strategies, Inc. doing business as: Obey, Case No. 3:25-cv-02829-BTM-MMP (S.D. Cal., Oct. 22, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Bold Strategies, Inc. doing business as Obey Clothing -- https://obeyclothing.com/ -- is an American streetwear company founded in 2001 by street artist and illustrator Shepard Fairey as an extension to his work in activism.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com BONAFIDE HEALTH: M.M. Sues for Invasion of Privacy -------------------------------------------------- M.M., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BONAFIDE HEALTH, LLC Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-08618 (S.D.N.Y., October 17, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all California residents who completed a quiz or purchased a product through the website www.hellobonafide.com and whose electronic communications were intercepted or recorded by advertising technology provided by Attentive Mobile, Inc. and Meta Platforms, Inc. (collectively "Third Parties") in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the California Constitution. According to the complaint, the consumers use Defendant's website in hopes of finding treatment to improve their menopausal symptoms. But what consumers don't know is that the intimate details about their symptoms and supplement purchaser are not private, but up for third-party companies to exploit. The Defendant enables the Third Parties to contemporaneously capture electronic communications consumers, including Plaintiff's, direct towards Defendant through the website as they search and browse for menopausal supplements to abate their symptoms. The Plaintiff brings this action for legal and equitable remedies resulting from Defendant's unlawful actions. Bonafide Health LLC is a pharmaceutical manufacturing company. The Company offers supplements through the website which it owns and operates. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0710 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: aleslie@bursor.com BOSE CORPORATION: Espinoza Sues Over Discriminative Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Alejandro Espinoza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BOSE CORPORATION, a Foreign Profit Corporation D/B/A BOSE, Case No. 1:25-cv-24858-FAM (S.D. Fla., Oct. 22, 2025), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), as a result of the Defendant's discriminative website. The Defendant was and still is an organization owning and operating the website located at https://www.bose.com/. Since the website is open through the internet to the public as an extension of the retail stores, by this nexus the website is an intangible service, privilege and advantage of Defendant's brick and mortar locations, the Defendant has subjected itself and the associated website it created and maintains to the requirements of the ADA. The website also services Defendant's physical stores by providing information on its brand and other information that Defendant is interested in communicating to its customers about its physical locations. Although the Website appeared to have an "accessibility" statement displayed and an "accessibility" widget/plugin added, the "accessibility" statement and widget/plugin, when tested, still could not be effectively accessed by, and continued to be a barrier to, blind and visually disabled persons, including Plaintiff as a completely blind person. Plaintiff, although she attempted to access the statement, thus, was unable to receive any meaningful or prompt assistance through the "accessibility" statement and the widget/plugin to enable her to quickly, fully, and effectively navigate the Website, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses the computer regularly, but due to his visual disability, Plaintiff cannot use his computer without the assistance of appropriate and available auxiliary aids, screen reader software, and other technology and assistance. BOSE, is a company that sells headphones, earbuds, and speakers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diego German Mendez, Esq. MENDEZ LAW OFFICES, PLLC P.O. BOX 228630 Miami, FL 33172 Phone: 305.264.9090 Facsimile: 1-305.809.8474 Email: info@mendezlawoffices.com - and - Richard J. Adams, Esq. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 6500 Cowpen Road, Suite 101 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Phone: 786-290-1963 Facsimile: 305-824-3868 Email: radamslaw7@gmail.com BRAD RAFFENSPERGER: Additional Oral Argument Set for Dec. 3 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as New Georgia Project, et al., v. Raffensperger, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03412 (N.D. Ga., Filed July 31, 2024), the Hon. Judge Steven D. Grimberg entered an order that the Defendants' oral request for additional oral argument time is granted in part. Each side shall be granted up to an additional 45 minutes to argue the pending motion to certify class. Oral argument shall now begin at 1:00 pm on December 3, 2025. Please see ECF 356 for further details. The suit alleges violation of the National Voter Registration Act. Raffensperger is an American businessman, civil engineer, and politician.[CC] CARVANA LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Bomar-Lindsay Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- M. Pamela Bomar-Lindsay, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Carvana LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company d/b/a Carvana Co., Carvana Co., a Delaware corporation, and Carvana Auto Receivables 2016-1 LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03881-SHD (D. Ariz., October 17, 2025) is a collective action that arises out of Defendants' systemic failure to compensate their employees for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked at the appropriate overtime rate, in willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint asserts that Defendants' practice of failing to compensate Plaintiff and other customer service specialists for all hours worked violated their rights under the FLSA. The Defendants are liable for their failure to pay their employees for all work performed and at the appropriate overtime rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The Plaintiff was a customer service specialist and was employed by the Defendant from November 2021 to December 2023. Carvana LLC is an online used car retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ty D. Frankel, Esq. FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC 2375 E. Camelback Road, Suite 600 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 598-4000 E-mail: ty@frankelsyverson.com - and - Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC 9655 Granite Ridge Drive, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92123 Telephone: (602) 598-4000 E-mail: patti@frankelsyverson.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com CERTIS USA: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Ocampo Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ GENESIS OCAMPO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CERTIS USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03425-JKB (D. Md., October 16, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and Class members that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices. On July 16, 2025, the Defendant learned they experienced a cybersecurity incident that involved unauthorized access to information from their systems. In response, the Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. Through its investigation, the Defendant determined that unauthorized activity began October 11, 2024 and November 7, 2024. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. But the Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information -- and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted private information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive data, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself 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 Defendant's inadequate data security practices. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees of the Defendant. Certis USA LLC is a manufacturer and distributor of biological crop protection products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. Daniel Tomascik, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #15018 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com dtomascik@laukaitislaw.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com CHESAPEAKE, VA: Kelley Files Suit Over Humanitarian Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- La Terrence D. Kelley -- Trustee & Federal Whistleblower, On Behalf Of All Similarly Situated Veterans, Servicemembers, and Families, Plaintiff v. City of Chesapeake, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00774-KDB (W.D.N.C., October 8, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendants for constitutional and humanitarian violation. The complaint states that between August 29 and 31, 2025, Plaintiff Kelley, a 100 percent disabled U.S. veteran, was unlawfully abducted, detained, and denied medical treatment in furtherance of a racketeering conspiracy under color of law involving Devon Arson, Shelly Wood, Alan P. Krassnoff, Judge Rufus A. Banks Jr., and others. Evidence preserved shows willful suppression of ADA Filings, obstruction of justice, and deliberate medical indifference, each day constituting an additional count of constitutional and humanitarian violation, adds the complaint. "Forensic and testimonial evidence of the unlawful abduction, detention, and medical neglect of the Plaintiff establishes prima facie proof of constitutional and statutory violations committed under color of law, forming part of a nationwide veterans' class action for redress and restitution," asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff states that his filing establishes the lawful remedies and fiduciary enforcement duties of each Territorial Attorney General and U.S. District Court to initiate, supervise, and enforce monetary recovery, liens, garnishments, and Treasury offsets against municipalities, agencies, and officials in continuing violation of Constitutional, Commercial, Natural, and Fiduciary law. Plaintiff La Terrence D. Kelley is a former USCG employee. Alan Paul Krasnoff is a former mayor of Chesapeake, Virginia. Judge Rufus A. Banks Jr. is presiding judge at Virginia Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: $332MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement This Legal Notice May Affect Your Rights Please Read It Carefully A settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit regarding the Colgate-Palmolive Co. Employees' Retirement Income Plan sponsored by Colgate-Palmolive Co. that is now pending in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York. The settlement has been preliminarily approved by the Court. Who is Included in the Class? The Class is a mandatory non-opt-out class of Plan participants who received lump sum pension payments from the Plan and may have a right under a Plan amendment to receive an additional payment in the form of an annuity. The Class is defined as: any person who, under any of Appendices B, C or D of the Plan, is entitled to a greater benefit than his or her Accrued Benefit as defined in Plan Sec. 1.2, provided such person received a lump sum payment from the Plan, and the beneficiaries and estates of any such person. In addition, to be a member of the Class, you must be identified on the spreadsheet maintained by the parties and included as part of the settlement agreement for purposes of administering the settlement. What is the Case About? This is a federal pension benefit class action seeking annuity benefits under the Residual Annuity Amendment (the Plan amendment). It alleges that the Plan failed to calculate benefits in accordance with the terms of the Amendment and federal pension law, resulting in underpayments to Plan participants. Defendants deny that any miscalculations occurred or that any additional payments are required. However, after more than 9 years of litigation, the parties have decided to settle the case to avoid the risk and expense of continued litigation. What Does the Proposed Settlement Provide? The settlement, which must be approved by the Court, creates a total settlement fund of $332 million, which will be used to pay benefits to class members, attorney's fees and expenses, a service award for the Class Representative (if any), and settlement administration costs. If the settlement receives final approval, class members would receive (1) future annuity payments (or an increase in future annuity payments that the Plan is already paying), provided the Class member (or the Class member's spouse at the time of the original payment) is alive as of August 1, 2025; and (2) an immediate lump sum to make up for missed prior annuity payments. Heirs of deceased participant- or spouse-Class members would only receive the lump sum for prior missed annuity payments. What Do You Need To Do? You need do nothing if you received a Notice of Class Action Settlement and Fairness Hearing in the mail. If you did not receive such a Notice and believe you are included in the Class, you should inform Class Counsel and Defense Counsel who are listed below. Class Members may not opt out of the settlement. If the Court approves the settlement, Class Members (or heirs) will receive payment directly via check. Objections to the Proposed Settlement A hearing will be held before the Honorable Lorna Gail Schofield at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007-1312, in Courtroom 1106, on January 12, 2026 at 2:30 p.m. This hearing is known as the “Fairness Hearing.” Class Members may appear at the Fairness Hearing, in person or by counsel of his or her own choice at his or her own expense, and oppose the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement, the application for an award of attorney's fees and expenses, settlement administration costs or a service award for the Class Representative. To oppose, the Class Member must, on or before December 12, 2025, file with the Clerk of the Court a notice of intention to appear and a written statement that indicates all bases for objection, all documentation in support of the objection, and legal authority, if any, supporting the objection, and a list of witnesses in support of the objection. The Class Member must provide copies to Class Counsel and Defense Counsel, received no later than December 12, 2025, who are: Eli Gottesdiener (Class Counsel) Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC 498 7th Street Brooklyn, NY 11215 (718) 788-1500 eli@gottesdienerlaw.com Robert Newman (Defense Counsel) Nicholas Pastan (Defense Counsel) Covington & Burling LLP 850 Tenth St, NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 662-5125 rnewman@cov.com npastan@cov.com How Do You Obtain More Information? More information may be obtained by inspecting the papers concerning this lawsuit at the Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, during regular business hours; or by registering and paying a modest fee to the PACER service, www.pacer.psc.uscourts.gov; or by contacting Class Counsel, or by visiting ColgatePensionClassAction.com ALL INQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS NOTICE SHALL BE DIRECTED TO CLASS COUNSEL, NOT THE COURT. D & Z PROPERTIES: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Le Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- HOANG MINH LE, an individual, Plaintiff v. D & Z PROPERTIES, LLC, a limited liability company, Defendant, Case 5:25-cv-02736 (C.D. Cal., October 16, 2025) a civil rights action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated, seeking damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and related California statutes. The Plaintiff is a T-12 paraplegic, and as a result is unable to walk or stand, and thus requires a use of a wheelchair at all times when traveling in public. On March 25, 2025, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's shopping plaza property and encountered barriers (both physical and intangible) that interfered with his ability to use and enjoy the goods, services, privileges and accommodations offered at the facility. The barriers at the property include inaccessible aisle and/or parking spaces, ramps, and pedestrian routes, says the Plaintiff. D & Z Properties, LLC owns and operates the property located in San Bernardino County, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Pamela Tsao, Esq. ASCENSION LAW GROUP 12341 Newport Ave Suite B200 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Telephone: (714) 783-4220 Facsimile: (888) 505-1033 E-mail: Pamela.Tsao@ascensionlawgroup.com DELOITTE CONSULTING: Settlement in "Pannozzi" Has Prelim Court OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Ronald J. Pannozzi, Paola Baldomar, Meredith Brandt, Monica Depina, Meghan Konopka, Joan Ratcliffe, and Renee Trigueiro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Deloitte Consulting LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00524-MRD-LDA, Judge Melissa R. DuBose of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, having reviewed the proposed Settlement, together with its exhibits, and based upon the relevant papers and all prior proceedings in this matter, the Court determined the proposed Settlement satisfies the criteria for Preliminary Approval, the proposed Settlement Class should be preliminarily certified, and the proposed Notice Program, Notices, Claims Process, and Claim Form approved. Class Certification and Jurisdiction The Court provisionally certified the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to finally certify it at the final approval stage: All living individuals residing in the United States who were sent a notice of the Data Incident by the State of Rhode Island indicating that their Private Information may have been impacted in the Data Incident. The Court found that it has subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, the Court found that the Parties are minimally diverse, there are more than 100 members of the Settlement Class, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 exclusive of interest and costs, as required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1332. The Court also has personal jurisdiction over the Parties and the Settlement Class. The Court determined that for settlement purposes the proposed Settlement Class meets all the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), namely that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical; there are common issues of law and fact; the claims of the proposed Class Representatives are typical of absent Settlement Class members; the Class Representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class as they have no interests antagonistic to or in conflict with the class and have retained experienced and competent counsel to prosecute this matter; common issues predominate over any individual issues; and a class action is the superior means of adjudicating the controversy. Class Counsel is also adequate to represent the Settlement Class. Class Representatives and Counsel Plaintiffs, Ronald J. Pannozzi, Paola Baldomar, Meredith Brandt, Monica Depina, Meghan Konopka, Joan Ratcliffe, and Renee Trigueiro were designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A and Danielle Perry of Mason LLP were designated as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The Court found that these counsel are experienced and will adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class. Upon preliminary review, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) and the Third Circuit's traditional Girsh factors outlined in Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153, 157 (3d Cir. 1975), the Court found the proposed Settlement is likely to be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate at the Final Approval Hearing, otherwise meets the criteria for approval, and warrants issuance of Notice to the Settlement Class. Accordingly, the proposed Settlement was preliminarily approved. A Final Approval Hearing shall take place before the Honorable Melissa R. DuBose on January 29, 2026 at 11:00 AM, at One Exchange Terrace, Federal Building and Courthouse, Providence, Rhode Island 02903 to determine, among other things, whether: (a) the proposed Settlement Class should be finally certified for settlement purposes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; (b) the Settlement should be finally approved as fair, reasonable and adequate and, in accordance with the Settlement's terms, all claims in the Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice; (c) Settlement Class Members should be bound by the Releases set forth in the Settlement; (d) the proposed Final Approval Order and final judgment should be entered; and (e) the Class Counsel's Application for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Awards should be granted. Class Counsel intends to seek an award of up to one-third of the Settlement Fund as attorneys' fees, as well as reimbursement of reasonable litigation costs, and Service Awards of up to $2,500.00 per Class Representative to be paid from the Settlement Fund. These amounts appear reasonable, but the Court will defer ruling on those awards until the Final Approval Hearing when considering Class Counsel's Application for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Awards. Settlement Administration and Notice Kroll Settlement Administration LLC was appointed as the Settlement Administrator, with responsibility for handling the Notice Program and overseeing the Claims Process. All Settlement Administration Costs incurred by the Settlement Administrator will be paid out of the Settlement Fund, as provided in the Settlement. The Notice, including the Postcard Notice, and Long Notice Form, along with the Claim Form, attached as exhibits to the Settlement Agreement, satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process, and thus were approved. The Court found that the form, content, and method of the Notices: (a) constitute the best practicable notice to the Settlement Class; (b) are reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise Settlement Class of the pendency of the action, the terms of the proposed Settlement, and their rights under the proposed Settlement; (c) are reasonable and constitute due, adequate, and sufficient notice to those persons entitled to receive notice; and (d) satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the constitutional requirement of due process, and any other legal requirements. Opt-Out and Objection Procedures Any Settlement Class member that wishes to opt-out of the Settlement must submit a written notification of such intent either electronically or by United States mail to the designated address established by the Settlement Administrator, postmarked no later than the Opt-Out Deadline, which is 30 days before the initial scheduled Final Approval Hearing date. Any Settlement Class member who does not submit a valid and timely request to opt-out in the manner described shall be bound by the Settlement, including all Releases, as well as all subsequent proceedings, orders, and judgments applicable to the Settlement Class. A Settlement Class Member that complies with the requirements of this Preliminary Approval Order and the Agreement may object to the Settlement and/or Application for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Awards. No Settlement Class Member shall be heard unless a written objection is submitted to the Court before the Objection Deadline, which shall be 30 days before the initial scheduled Final Approval Hearing date. Claims Process The Settlement establishes a Claims Process for assessing and determining the validity and value of Claims and a methodology for paying Settlement Class Members that submit a Valid Claim. The Court preliminarily approved this process. Settlement Class members that qualify for and wish to submit a Claim shall do so in accordance with the requirements and procedures specified in the Settlement, including the requirements and procedures in the Claim Form. Stay of Proceedings Except as necessary to effectuate this Preliminary Approval Order, this matter and any deadlines set by the Court in this matter were stayed and suspended pending the Final Approval Hearing and issuance of the Final Approval Order and judgment, or until further order of this Court. Upon the entry of this order, all members of the Settlement Class shall be provisionally enjoined and barred from asserting any claims or continuing any litigation against Defendant and the Released Parties arising out of, relating to, or in connection with the Released Claims prior to the Court's decision as to whether to grant Final Approval of the Settlement. A copy of the Preliminary settlement is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OIeXzG from PacerMonitor.com DESIGNER BRANDS: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Designer Brands Inc. (NYSE: DBI) resulting from allegations that Designer Brands may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Designer Brands 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=40581 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 June 10, 2025, Designer Brands reported its financial results for the first quarter of 2025. Commenting on the results, Designer Brands' CEO stated that "[w]e experienced a soft start to 2025 amid an unpredictable macro environment and deteriorating consumer sentiment." Further, he stated that "[g]iven the persistent instability and pressure on consumer discretionary spend, we've made the decision to withdraw our 2025 guidance for the time being." On this news, Designer Brands' stock fell 18.2% on June 10, 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. Contact Information: 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] DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Singer Files FDCA Suit in D. Nev. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diversified Adjustment Service, Inc. The case is captioned as CHARLES S. SINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT SERVICE, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01852-CDS-MDC (D. Nev., September 30, 2025). The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. Diversified Adjustment Service, Inc. is a debt collection services provider based in Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent S. Snyder, Esq. Brian Flick, Esq. DANNLAW 15000 Madison Ave. Lakewood, OH 44107 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 - and - George Haines, Esq. Gerardo Avalos, Esq. FREEDOM LAW FIRM, LLC 8985 S. Eastern Ave., Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89123 Telephone: (702) 880-5554 Facsimile: (702) 385-5518 Email: Ghaines@freedomlegalteam.com gavalos@freedomlegalteam.com DJGN LEXINGTON: Landis Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Under FLSA, KWHA ---------------------------------------------------------------- CALEB LANDIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DJGN LEXINGTON, LLC, DJGN BOWLING GREEN, LLC, RICCI CULINARY HOLDING COMPANY LLC, RICCI CULINARY MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, and TONY RICCI, Case No. 5:25-cv-00394-DCR (E.D. Ky., Oct. 21, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages owed to Plaintiff and all other similarly situated workers employed by Defendants, as well as liquidated and other non-wage damages, attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act. The Defendants have employed the Plaintiff as a server at their Tony's restaurant location in Lexington, Kentucky, from approximately July 2021 through the present. Throughout his employment as a server, the Plaintiff has received hourly wages from the Defendants less than the federal and Kentucky minimum wage rate plus tips, the suit says. The Defendants operate Steaks & Seafoods restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. Nicole A. Chanin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com nchanin@barrettjohnston.com - and - Jerome P. Prather, Esq. GARMER & PRATHER, PLLC 141 North Broadway Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 254-9352 Facsimile: (859) 233-9769 E-mail: jprather@garmerprather.com DM AVO: Faces Osorio Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Jose Osorio, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. DM Avo, LLC d/b/a Avo Miami Restaurant, and Dilgas Murad, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-24840 (S.D. Fla., October 21, 2025) is an action to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. During the relevant time of employment, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for overtime hours, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours; he was paid for all his hours at his regular rate, but he was not paid for overtime hours, as required by the federal law. Plaintiff Osorio was hired by the Defendants from December 17, 2021 to March 26, 2024, or for a period of 118 weeks. He worked as a restaurant employee performing as a line cook. Plaintiff had additional responsibilities performing general restaurant work. Avo Miami Restaurant is a fast and casual restaurant with locations in both Miami Beach and Coconut Grove in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com DM AVO: Fails to Pay Restaurant Staff OT Wages, Pino Says --------------------------------------------------------- Rosa Pino, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. DM Avo, LLC d/b/a Avo Miami Restaurant, and Dilgas Murad, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-24836-PCH (S.D. Fla., October 21, 2025) is an action to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint relates that during the relevant time of employment, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for overtime hours. The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours; he was paid for all his hours at his regular rate, but he was not paid for overtime hours, as required by the federal law. Plaintiff Pino was hired by the Defendants from September 9, 2021 to October 20, 2024, or for a period of 162 weeks. However, for FLSA purposes, the Plaintiff's relevant employment period is 111 weeks. He worked as a restaurant employee performing as a prep cook and line cook. The Plaintiff had additional responsibilities performing general restaurant work. Avo Miami Restaurant is a fast and casual restaurant with locations in both Miami Beach and Coconut Grove in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com DUBAI LOUNGE: Martinez Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL --------------------------------------------------------------- YUDELKA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. DUBAI LOUNGE & RESTAURANT LLC (d/b/a DUBAI LOUNGE & RESTAURANT), and JOSE CRUZ, Case No. 1:25-cv-08692 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 21, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards and New York Labor Law. Accordingly, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that she worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Martinez appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Martinez the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which she had to work over 10 hours a day, the suit says. Plaintiff Martinez is a former employee of Defendants Dubai Lounge & RESTAURANT LLC. Plaintiff Martinez was employed as a cook, cleaner food runner, bartender and general assistant. The Defendants own, operate, or control a Hookah lounge/restaurant, located at 1579 St. Nicholas Avenue, New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 DULCICH INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Bergeson Says --------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY BERGESON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DULCICH, INC., d/b/a PACIFIC SEAFOOD COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01923-SI (D. Ore., October 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former customers' sensitive information and protected health information. The Plaintiff and Class Members were required to provide Defendant with their private information as part of Defendant's business operations. Despite Defendant's duty to safeguard the private information of its current and previous customers, the Defendant acknowledged that Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was compromised in a data breach when between, on or about June 24, 2025 and on or about June 25, 2025, an unauthorized party gained access to our network. The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, intrusion of their health privacy, and similar forms of criminal mischief, risk which may last for the rest of their lives. Consequently, Plaintiff and Class Members must devote substantially more time, money, and energy to protect themselves, to the extent possible, from these crimes, says the suit. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleges claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment arising from the data breach. Dulcich, Inc., d/b/a Pacific Seafood Company is an Oregon corporation engaged in, among other things, seafood processing and distribution through various entities operating under the assumed business name Pacific Seafood Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul B. Barton, Esq. OLSEN BARTON LLC 4035 Douglas Way, Suite 200 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone: (503) 468-5573 Facsimile: (503) 820-2933 E-mail: paul@olsenbarton.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Stephen E. Connolly, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com DUNKIN' BRANDS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- NELSON FERNANDEZ, Plaintiff v. DUNKIN' BRANDS, INC., d/b/a BASKIN ROBBINS, a foreign for-profit corporation, Defendant, Case No. 9:25-cv-81177 (S.D. Fla., September 23, 2025) is a class action for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff's visual disability limits him in the performance of major life activities, including seeing, and he requires assistive technologies, auxiliary aids, and services for effective communication, including communication in connection with his use of a computer. Beginning in May 2025, the Plaintiff attempted on a number of occasions to utilize the Defendant's website, https://www.baskinrobbins.com, to browse through the food and beverage and other online offers to educate himself as to the food and beverages, services, sales, discounts, and promotions being offered, learn about the brick-and-mortar restaurants, check restaurant hours, and check food and beverage pricing with the intent to make a purchase through the Website or in the Lake Worth physical restaurants. However, the Plaintiff was unable to fully and equally access, navigate, and communicate with Defendant through the website due to his visual disability and the website's access barriers. Thus, the Plaintiff and others who are blind and with visual disabilities will suffer continuous and ongoing harm from Defendant's intentional acts, omissions, policies, and practices as set forth herein unless properly enjoined by this Court, says the suit. Dunkin' Brands, Inc. was an American restaurant holding company that owned and franchised Dunkin' and Baskin-Robbins.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roderick V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Telephone: (954) 362-3800 Facsimile: (954) 362-3779 E-mail: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo M. Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO DURAN, P.A. 6355 N.W. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Telephone: (305) 266-9780 Facsimile: (305) 269-8311 E-mail: duranandassociates@gmail.com EASTER SEALS: Hernandez Date Breach Suit Removed to E.D.N.C. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled DESIREE HERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EASTER SEALS UCP NORTH CAROLINA & VIRGINIA, INC. D/B/A EASTERSEALS PORT HEALTH and LANGDON & COMPANY, LLP, Defendants, Case No. 25CV030376910, was removed from the Superior Court of North Carolina for the County of Wake to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on October 23, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00676-D to the proceeding. The complaint asserts these claims: (i) negligence, (ii) breach of implied contract, (iii) breach of fiduciary duty, and (iv) unjust enrichment. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges Defendants' failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' private information with which they were entrusted for treatment and that this caused the data breach that affected Plaintiff's and Class Member's private information. Easter Seals UCP North Carolina & Virginia, Inc. provides a range of services to people with disabilities.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: William J. McMahon, IV, Esq. David A. Yudelson CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP One West Fourth Street, Suite 850 Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Telephone: (336) 721-6860 Facsimile: (336) 748-9112 E-mail: bmcmahon@constangy.com dyudelson@constangy.com - and - Marc E. Williams, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 949 Third Ave., Suite 200 Huntington, WV 25701 Telephone: (304) 526-3501 Facsimile: (304) 526-3599 E-mail: marc.williams@nelsonmullins.com ENCOMPASS HEALTH: 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 Encompass Health Corporation (NYSE: EHC) resulting from allegations that Encompass Health may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So what: If you purchased Encompass Health 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=44051 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 July 15, 2025, The New York Times published an article entitled "Even Grave Errors at Rehab Hospitals Go Unpenalized and Undisclosed." The article stated that "[r]ehab hospitals that help people recover from major surgeries and injuries have become a highly lucrative slice of the health care business. But federal data and inspection reports show that some run by the dominant company, Encompass Health Corporation, [. . .] have had rare but serious incidents of patient harm and perform below average on two key safety measures tracked by Medicare." On this news, the price of Encompass Health stock fell 10.3% on July 15, 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. Contact Information: 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 [GN] FASTLY INC: Court Grants Partial Dismissal of Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as In re Fastly, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:24-cv-03170-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Lead Plaintiff Olger Guri and named plaintiff Ken Kula brought this securities fraud proposed class action against Defendants Fastly, Inc., Todd Nightingale (Fastly's Chief Executive Officer), and Ronald Kisling (Fastly's Chief Financial Officer), alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs alleged that, beginning on November 15, 2023, and throughout the Class Period, Defendants misled investors about the customer pullback and macroeconomic impacts that Fastly was experiencing. On November 15, 2023, Defendant Nightingale allegedly misrepresented to investors that Fastly was not seeing the slowing in growth that its competitors were seeing at that time, even though several days earlier he had informed all Fastly employees at an all-hands meeting that the Company's revenue was down because its large customers were reducing their usage and thus were generating less revenue for the Company. This decline in revenue was associated with macroeconomic forces that were negatively impacting the Company throughout 2023, which were causing Fastly's large customers to become price-conscious. On February 14, 2024, Fastly announced its financial results for Q4 2023 and fiscal year 2023 and reported Q4 2023 revenue that was on the lower side of the Company's guidance for that quarter and missed analysts' consensus estimates by 1.1%. The day after the announcement of the Q4 2023 results, Fastly's stock price fell 30.59%. During the earnings call for Q4 2023, Defendant Nightingale allegedly misled investors by attributing the lower-than-expected revenue for Q4 2023 to weaker than anticipated international traffic without revealing that it was also due to the decline in usage and revenue from the Company's large customers in Q4 2023. On May 1, 2024, Defendants released Fastly's financial results for Q1 2024 and lowered the Company's revenue guidance for the remainder of 2024 in part because of decreased usage and pricing pressure from the Company's largest customers. The day after the earnings call, analysts downgraded Fastly's stock, citing the decelerating growth of revenue from its largest customers, and the price of the Company's stock declined by 32.02%. On August 7, 2024, Fastly released its financial results for Q2 2024 and decreased for the second time in 2024 Fastly's revenue guidance for the remainder of fiscal year 2024. The day after the earnings call, the price of Fastly's stock fell 14.33%. The Court found that Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Statement 2 was misleading when made. When asked whether macroeconomic trends were getting better on November 15, 2023, Defendant Nightingale stated that for the last three or four quarters, his competitors were seeing some slowing in growth, and we're not seeing that. Because Defendant Nightingale touted that Fastly was not seeing any slowing in growth like its competitors were seeing at the time that Statement 2 was made, he was required to disclose adverse information that cut against that positive statement. The Court determined that Plaintiffs alleged facts that raised the inference that Defendant Nightingale knew at the time he made Statement 2 on November 15, 2023, that Fastly's revenue was declining because of decreasing usage and revenues from Fastly's large customers that were related to macroeconomic conditions. Specifically, CW6 reported that, during an all-hands meeting held about a week after the November 1, 2023, earnings call but before Defendant Nightingale made Statement 2 on November 15, 2023, Defendant Nightingale discussed that Fastly's revenue was down because of declines in usage of Fastly's platform by the Company's large customers and related declines in revenue from such customers. CW1 confirmed that Defendant Nightingale discussed during an all-hands meeting held during Q4 2023 that usage and revenue from large customers were declining. The Court found that Plaintiffs adequately alleged that Statement 5 was misleading when made because it created the impression that the only cause of Fastly coming in at the lower end of its Q4 2023 guidance was weaker than expected international traffic even though there was another cause known to the individual Defendants. During the February 14, 2024, earnings call about Q4 2023 results, Defendant Nightingale attributed Fastly's revenue coming in at the lower end of the Q4 2023 guidance range to weaker than anticipated international traffic, offset by seasonally strong live streaming and gaming activity. Defendants were required to disclose the declines in usage and revenue from large customers when making Statement 5 to make the statement not misleading. The Court determined that Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Statement 6 was false or misleading when made. When pressed by analysts during the February 14, 2024, earnings call about whether there were fundamental changes to the business in Q4 2023 in light of macroeconomic impacts when compared with Q3 2023, Defendant Nightingale stated: No. I think it was pretty much as we saw last quarter. A handful of deals may be taking a little longer than we thought, a little bit of deal elongation. Defendants' failure to mention the decline in Fastly's revenue caused by the declining usage and revenue from its large customers when making Statement 6 rendered the statement misleading, because it created the false impression that the only macroeconomic impact that Fastly experienced in Q4 2023 was a little bit of deal elongation. The Court found that Plaintiffs plausibly alleged an omission that violated Item 303 and that rendered Statement 7 misleading when made. Fastly's annual report for fiscal year 2023, which was issued on February 21, 2024, stated: Our enterprise customers continue to leverage our platform, increasing their spend on our platform and driving our revenue growth year over year. Because Statement 7 touted that Fastly's enterprise customers were increasing their spend on Fastly's platform and were driving its revenue growth in fiscal year 2023, the omission of the declining usage and revenues from enterprise customers in Q4 2023, which cut against the positive information conveyed in Statement 7, rendered Statement 7 misleading. The Court found that Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Statement 8 was false or misleading when made under In re Alphabet. Fastly's annual report for fiscal year 2023 warned investors that if the Company were unable to have existing enterprise customers continue and increase their use of the platform, the business would likely be harmed. The statement warned of risks that could result if Fastly did not succeed in increasing its enterprise customers' usage of its platform, but did not disclose that that risk may have already come to fruition, as large customers' usage of Fastly's platform had been declining in Q4 2023. However, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to Statements 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, finding that Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege falsity for these statements. The Court found that the allegations in the amended complaint, when considered holistically, raised a strong inference of scienter with respect to individual Defendants Nightingale and Kisling. Plaintiffs' allegations strongly indicated that the individual Defendants knew of the declines in usage and revenues from Fastly's large customers in Q4 2023 that were associated with macroeconomic conditions, as well as of the negative impact that those declines had on Fastly's revenue in Q4 2023, because those matters were discussed during all-hands meetings that were attended by all Fastly employees and the Company's C-Suite, which included the individual Defendants. Further, Plaintiffs' allegations raised the strong inference that the individual Defendants' omission of the Q4 2023 usage and revenue declines from Statements 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 carried a significant danger of misleading investors that was so obvious that the individual Defendants must have been aware of it. The individual Defendants' choice to omit the usage and revenue declines and related macroeconomic effects at issue when making these statements, even though the omission carried a significant and obvious danger of misleading investors, was sufficient to raise a strong inference of scienter as to the individual Defendants. The Court found that Plaintiffs alleged facts that satisfied the requirements for alleging loss causation under a materialization-of-the-risk theory with respect to Statement 2. Plaintiffs alleged that the risks of the decline in usage and revenues from Fastly's large customers in Q4 2023, which Defendants omitted from Statement 2, began to materialize when Fastly released its Q4 2023 financial results in February 2024, as those results showed that Fastly came in at the lower end of its revenue guidance for that quarter and missed analysts' consensus revenue estimates by 1.1%. According to Plaintiffs' allegations, the materialization of the risks of the concealed decline in usage and revenues from Fastly's large customers caused the lower-than-expected revenues for Q4 2023. In turn, those lower-than-expected revenues caused a 30.59% decline in the price of Fastly's stock a day after the Q4 2023 results were announced, which then caused Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class to suffer losses. However, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to loss causation for Statements 5, 6, 7, and 8. Plaintiffs argued that Defendants' revelations on May 1, 2024, and August 7, 2024, that the revenue from some of Fastly's largest customers had declined in Q1 2024 and Q2 2024, respectively, constitute corrective disclosures that revealed the truth that Defendants concealed from Statements 5, 6, 7, and 8. The Court found that the May 1, 2024, and August 7, 2024, statements that Plaintiffs characterized as corrective disclosures revealed revenue declines in quarters other than Q4 2023, namely Q1 2024 and Q2 2024. Because the Court could not reasonably infer that corrective disclosures on May 1, 2024, and August 7, 2024, revealed the truth that Defendants allegedly concealed with respect to Statements 5, 6, 7, and 8, Plaintiffs' corrective-disclosure loss causation theory with respect to those statements failed. The Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the Section 20(a) claim to the extent that the claim was predicated on Statement 2, as Plaintiff's Section 10(b) claim was not subject to dismissal to the extent that it was predicated on that statement. The motion to dismiss the Section 20(a) claim was otherwise granted for the reasons set forth in connection with Plaintiffs' claims under Section 10(b). Accordingly, the Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) to the extent that such claims were premised on Statement 2. The Court granted, with leave to amend, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) to the extent that they were premised on the remaining statements challenged in the amended complaint. Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date this order is filed to cure the deficiencies discussed herein. A failure to file an amended complaint will result in dismissal with prejudice of the claims dismissed herein. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A17KkV from PacerMonitor.com FEDEX GROUND: Ct. Partially OKs Notice Form in "Blake" ------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned Angel Sullivan-Blake and Horace Claiborne, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-1698 (W.D. Pa.), the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Issuance of Notice Under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking conditional certification of a proposed nationwide collective action. Plaintiff Sullivan-Blake is a resident of Texas and worked as a delivery driver for FedEx through an ISP from approximately November 2015 through October 2018. Plaintiff Claiborne "resides in North Carolina and has worked as a delivery driver for FedEx through ISPs since approximately 2011." Both Plaintiffs allege that they were eligible for overtime compensation under the FLSA but did not receive it. In her affidavit, Plaintiff Sullivan-Blake avers that she "has worked full-time as a delivery driver out of three different FedEx terminals, all located in Texas, primarily using a van that was under 10,000 pounds. She states that when she first started working for FedEx in November of 2015, FedEx paid her by the hour and she received overtime when she worked over forty hours a week. However, starting sometime in January of 2016, FedEx required her to be paid by an ISP. Plaintiff Sullivan-Blake claims that in order to keep her job she was required to be paid through an ISP that compensated her at a flat daily rate regardless of how many hours she worked, even though she frequently worked more than forty hours a week. She asserts that after she started to be paid by an ISP for her FedEx delivery work, she continued reporting to work each morning and delivering packages for FedEx following the same mandatory delivery procedures established by FedEx and that nothing about her job changed. Plaintiff Claiborne's affidavit reflects that he too has worked as a full-time delivery driver out of three different FedEx terminals, one located in Virginia and the other two in North Carolina, using trucks that weighed less than 10,001 pounds. He alleges that he has never been paid any overtime even though he has regularly worked more than 40 hours each week during his employment. Based on their personal observations, Plaintiffs aver that all of the delivery drivers who worked alongside them were required to work under various ISPs. According to their affidavits, all of the delivery drivers to whom Plaintiffs spoke told them that they do not get paid overtime for their work. Plaintiffs allege that despite working for different ISPs, delivery drivers, including themselves, wore the same FedEx uniform, drove delivery vehicles with FedEx logos, and used special FedEx scanners for tracking packages. Plaintiff Sullivan-Blake notes that "each morning when she reported to work, package handlers employed by FedEx had already separated the packages that each delivery driver was assigned to deliver that day. Plaintiffs assert that customer comments or complaints about their work were directed to FedEx, as opposed to their ISPs. The affidavits also reflect that during their time as drivers, they never delivered packages for another company as they did not have time to do so. Plaintiff Sullivan-Blake was previously a named plaintiff in Roy v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Case No. 17-30116, a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court of the District of Massachusetts on August 29, 2017. The Roy Court, "relying upon the United States Supreme Court's decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), held that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate claims of any non-Massachusetts named plaintiffs and dismissed Plaintiff Sullivan-Blake from that case on May 22, 2018. After further briefing, in an opinion dated November 27, 2018, the Roy Court extended its holding to non-Massachusetts opt-in plaintiffs, effectively dismissing Plaintiff Claiborne from that action as well. Plaintiffs "subsequently commenced this action on December 21, 2018. The Court explained that Section 216(b) of the FLSA authorizes employees to bring a collective action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. At the first step of certification, Plaintiffs need only make a modest factual showing-something beyond mere speculation-to demonstrate a factual nexus between the manner in which the employer's alleged policy affected him or her and the manner in which it affected the proposed collective action members. The Court found that Plaintiffs have submitted evidence showing that a group of similarly situated nationwide drivers who delivered packages for FedEx exists. The Court noted they have submitted FedEx's 10-K which describes FedEx's shift to the ISP Model nationwide.Both Plaintiffs have submitted affidavits describing their work and interactions with other delivery drivers at a total of six different FedEx terminals in North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. Additionally, during the pendency of this Motion thirty-four individuals from eighteen different states have filed opt-in consent forms. FedEx contended that Plaintiffs have failed to identify a uniform FedEx compensation policy that deprives them and the members of the proposed collective action of overtime pay." The company maintained that each ISP, not FedEx, has sole and complete discretion over their drivers' pay. The Court rejected these contentions, stating that these contentions focus either on merits of Plaintiffs' claims, or on whether the potential opt-ins are in fact similarly situated to Plaintiffs. The Court emphasized that this is an inquiry that will be undertaken at step two of the certification process with a more developed record. FedEx also argued that Plaintiffs' evidence is specific to their individual circumstances and cannot be extrapolated to thousands to other delivery drivers across hundreds of FedEx terminals nationwide. The Court found this argument unpersuasive, distinguishing the case from a previous decision and noting that in contrast to the localized evidence in that case, "Plaintiffs' affidavits detail their own experiences and interactions with delivery drivers at six FedEx terminals in three states. The Court concluded that this is sufficient at this stage of the proceedings. The Court addressed the appropriate time period for the proposed collective action. The Court noted that an action for unpaid overtime compensation under the FLSA must be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrued, except that a cause of action arising out of a willful violation may be commenced within three years after the cause of action accrued. The Court held that in light of the unique procedural history of this case, the Court concludes that sound legal principles as well as the interests of justice warrant equitably tolling the notice period to preserve the claims of potential opt-ins. However, the Court found that tolling the notice period back to the filing date of either the complaint, or the motion for conditional certification in Roy, as suggested by Plaintiffs, is inappropriate. Instead, the Court concluded that an equitable date for tolling in this case is November 27, 2018, the date on which the Roy Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the non-Massachusetts potential opt-ins. Accordingly, notice should be issued to all putative collective members who have worked since November 27, 2015. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs' Motion for Issuance of Notice Under Section 216(b) of the FLSA will be granted in part and denied in part. The Court directed the parties to meet and confer in an effort to finalize the content and form of the notice in accordance with this decision and to submit a joint proposal for the Court's consideration. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydnd48es from PacerMonitor.com FEDEX GROUND: Ryan Systems, et al., Can't Intervene in "Claiborne" ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Horace Claiborne, Sonjia Monique Bowlin, Tyshawn Walker, Dezrae Kauhane, Willie Seals, Frederick Eppich, Jerome Schoolfield, Kristina Travis, Jeremy Winkels, Daniel Forrester, Mark David Griffeth, Douglas Russell, Kenneth Burton, Gerald Gensoli, and Thomas Deppiesse, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01698-RJC (W.D. Pa.), Judge Robert J. Colville of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied the motions to intervene filed by Ryan Systems, Inc., TABE Trucking Inc., and Cauble Enterprises, Inc. Plaintiffs asserted that they were employed by the Defendant through intermediary employers to perform delivery services on the Defendant's behalf. Plaintiffs further asserted that the Defendant has violated the FLSA by not paying overtime compensation to Plaintiffs for all hours worked over forty each week. The Defendant, a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, operates a nationwide package pickup and delivery business. The Defendant contracts with thousands of small businesses whose employees carry out the physical pickup and delivery of packages. Since long before 2014, the Defendant has contracted only with incorporated businesses for delivery services, and does not employ any drivers for such services. On January 31, 2020, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the Defendant's Rule 19(a) Motion to Join Pennsylvania Service Providers as Necessary Parties and Rule 19(b) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join Indispensable Parties. In its Rule 19 Motion, the Defendant sought joinder of Pennsylvania Service Providers to this action. The Defendant argued that Service Providers are necessary and indispensable parties in this case because they employ and pay Plaintiff drivers, set the employment and wage policies for drivers, and have a direct interest in the outcome of the case. The Court rejected this argument in holding that Service Providers do not have a direct stake in this litigation, explaining that the Court can accord complete relief among existing parties, Service Providers do not have a direct stake in this litigation, and the absence of Service Providers would not subject the Defendant to inconsistent obligations. On May 21, 2020, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion denying the Defendant's Motion to Disqualify, which sought disqualification of Plaintiffs' counsel on the basis that the firm's concurrent representation created a conflict of interest. The Court explained that Plaintiffs need only prove that they were not properly compensated pursuant to the FLSA and that the Defendant is a joint employer pursuant to the FLSA to fully recover in this action, as joint employers may be held jointly and severally liable for violations of the FLSA. The Court further explained that the factfinder in this action will not be required to make a determination as to whether Service Providers constitute joint employers and thus had an obligation under the FLSA to pay overtime compensation to the Plaintiffs. Thus, there will be no determination in this action that Service Providers violated the FLSA. The Court noted that while the Defendant may pursue indemnification and contract termination following the conclusion of the present action, a finding of liability on the Defendant's part in no way establishes the Defendant's right to recover from Service Providers. Each of the Proposed Intervenors asserted that it was the direct employer of certain Opt-Ins, and further asserted that such Opt-Ins did not drive a vehicle weighing 10,000 pounds or less during any workweek in which those Opt-Ins worked over 40 hours. The Proposed Intervenors argued that they have better access to relevant records pertaining to the Opt-Ins at issue than the Defendant. The Proposed Intervenors also asserted that each Proposed Intervenor has a substantial interest in the instant matter because the Defendant has threatened each Proposed Intervenor with a lawsuit for indemnity if the Proposed Intervenors did not move to intervene in this case. Under Rule 24(a)(2), a litigant must establish a timely application for leave to intervene, a sufficient interest in the underlying litigation, a threat that the interest will be impaired or affected by the disposition of the underlying action, and that the existing parties to the action do not adequately represent the prospective intervenor's interests. The Court noted that this is the second attempt to include Service Providers in this litigation, and the Defendant's third time arguing that a decision in this case will directly impact Service Providers. The Court found that the Proposed Intervenors and the Defendant fail to provide a sufficient basis to revisit the Court's previous determinations with respect to Service Providers' lack of a sufficient interest in this litigation. The Court has twice determined that Service Providers do not have a direct stake in this litigation. For the reasons discussed in previous opinions, Service Providers do not have a sufficient interest in the present action to warrant intervention as of right under Rule 24(a). The Court found that the Proposed Intervenors fail to set forth a sufficient interest in this litigation, or that this litigation poses a threat to any such interest. Turning to permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b), the Court found that, even if the Proposed Intervenors satisfied the requirements of Rule 24(b)(1)(B), the Motions to Intervene make clear that permitting intervention will result in undue delay of this action. Rule 24(b)(3) provides that, in exercising its discretion, the court must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties' rights. Each of the Proposed Intervenors asserted that it intends to file a motion to dismiss a select few of the approximately 30,000 opt-in plaintiffs in this action. Such motions will clearly delay the adjudication of this matter, which has been pending for more than three years and has already involved significant motion practice in the absence of Service Providers. The Court found that the addition of three Service Providers, each of whom intends to file a motion to dismiss individual opt-ins and duplicative briefing respecting the issue of decertification, will serve to make this case more complicated, convoluted, and unwieldy, and will clearly result in undue delay in this action. In light of the same, the Court declined to exercise its discretion to permit intervention under Rule 24(b). Accordingly, the Court denied the Motions to Intervene filed by Ryan Systems, Inc., TABE Trucking Inc., and Cauble Enterprises, Inc. A copy of the court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ypRC0f from PacerMonitor.com FIRST TRUST: Rudd Balks at Unlawful Sale of Structured Notes ------------------------------------------------------------ TY RUDD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST TRUST PORTFOLIOS, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12682 (N.D. Ill., October 16, 2025) arises from a fraudulent scheme in which Defendant First Trust Portfolios, acting as a financial product wholesaler, assisted Vora Wealth Management and Dharmesh Vora in the unlawful sale of high-risk structured notes to Arizona investors, including Plaintiff. According to the complaint, First Trust actively facilitated and amplified Vora's deception of hundreds of Arizona retirees by: (1) custom-designing and aggressively marketing extraordinarily risky structured notes while concealing their "heads I win, tails you lose" structure; (2) creating promotional materials and hosting events that falsely portrayed these high-risk investments as offering "protection" and "downside mitigation"; (3) failing to correct Vora's material misrepresentations that clients had "added protection" from risk when the investment documents noted that investors could "lose their entire initial investment"; and (4) providing undisclosed kickbacks and benefits to Vora in exchange for concentrating nearly 89% of clients' life savings -- $124 million -- into First Trust's toxic structured products, resulting in $89 million in losses when the scheme inevitably collapsed. Further, First Trust provided benefits and kickbacks to Vora in exchange for the promotion and sale of the Structured Notes in violation of the Arizona's Blue Sky Law, Arizona Revised Statues. First Trust Portfolios, L.P. offers investment and advisory services as a registered Financial Industry Regulatory Authority broker-dealer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth A. Kaveny, Esq. KAVENY + KROLL, LLC 130 E. Randolph Street, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 761-5585 E-mail: elizabeth@kavenykroll.com - and - David P. Meyer, Esq. Matthew R. Wilson, Esq. Courtney M. Werning, Esq. Ryne E. Tipton, Esq. MEYER WILSON WERNING CO., LPA 305 W. Nationwide Blvd. Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 224-6000 Facsimile: (614) 224-6066 E-mail: dmeyer@meyerwilson.com mwilson@meyerwilson.com cwerning@meyerwilson.com rtipton@meyerwilson.com - and - Jason S. Haselkorn, Esq. Matthew N. Thibaut, Esq. HASELKORN & THIBAUT, P.A. 790 Juno Ocean Walk, Suite 501C Juno Beach, FL 33408 Telephone: (561) 585-0000 E-mail: jhaselkorn@htattorneys.com mthibaut@htattorneys.com FLIPCAUSE INC: Unlawfully Withholds Charitable Funds, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- THE LATINO MEDICAL STUDENT ASSOCIATION-NORTHEAST, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. FLIPCAUSE, INC., EMERSON VALIAO, and SEAN WHEELER, Case No. 4:25-cv-09047 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 21, 2025) arises from a nationwide scheme by fundraising platform Flip and its executives to defraud and systematically deprive non-profit organizations of the very funds they raised for their charitable missions. According to the complaint, Flip cause holds itself out as a "one-stop platform" for non-profits (Account Holders), promising immediate access to donated funds and transfers within 1-5 business days. In reality, Flipcause created a financial nightmare for the thousands of charities that entrusted it with their donations. Plaintiff The Latino Medical Student Association-Northeast (LMSA-NE), a 501(c)(3) non-profit dedicated to supporting Latino medical students, is one such victim. As of the filing of this complaint, Flipcause is unlawfully withholding over $75,000 in funds belonging to LMSA-NE, providing only evasive and canned responses to LMSA-NE's repeated demands for its own funds. This has materially harmed LMSA-NE's mission, forcing it to drain its savings and jeopardizing its ability to host medical conferences for thousands of students. While non-profits have been forced to suspend operations, lay off staff, and default on obligations, Flipcause has issued misleading public statements blaming "cash flow bottlenecks" while insisting the company remains "healthy." Meanwhile, LMSA-NE is informed that Flipcause is making effort to be acquired, while its Account Holders' funds are being held at ransom and while its representations to Account Holders are known to be false, says the suit. The lawsuit seeks to hold Flipcause and its leadership accountable for their misrepresentations and wrongful conduct and to recover the millions of dollars in charitable funds they are unlawfully withholding from LMSA-NE and the entire class of similarly situated non-profits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juyoun Han, Esq. Eric Baum, Esq. EISENBERG & BAUM, LLP 24 Union Square East, PH New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 353-8700 Facsimile: (212) 353-1708 - and - John K. Buche, Esq. Byron Ma, Esq. THE BUCHE LAW FIRM, P.C. 901 S MoPac Expy, Bldg. 1, Ste. 300 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 215-4997 E-mail: jbuche@buchelaw.com bma@buchelaw.com FLORIDA: Judge Certifies Transgender Inmates Accommodation Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Saunders, writing for WUSF, reports that the U.S. District judge certified a class action on the accommodations issue, which involves access to certain clothing and grooming. A federal judge has cleared the way for transgender Florida prison inmates to pursue a class-action lawsuit alleging they were improperly denied accommodations as part of treating gender dysphoria. Chief U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor certified a class action on the accommodations issue, which stems from state corrections officials denying transgender inmates access to certain clothing and grooming, such as makeup. Winsor, however, rejected certifying a class action on other allegations about inmates potentially being denied hormone therapy. The 13-page ruling came as part of a lawsuit filed in October 2024 after the state revamped policies about transgender inmates. That included barring clothing and grooming accommodations for inmates with gender dysphoria and barring the use of state money for hormone therapy to treat gender dysphoria -- though "variances" are allowed for hormone therapy, according to court documents. Five transgender inmates are named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, and their attorneys sought class-action status to include other inmates with gender dysphoria. At least 180 inmates had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria in September 2024, when the policy changes were issued through what is known as a "bulletin," according to a motion for class certification filed by the plaintiffs' attorneys in April. "In sum, the health bulletin denies all putative class members clothing and grooming accommodations, regardless of their medical need for them," the motion said. "And it puts them at significant risk of being denied hormone therapy because some of the requirements for a variance are unrelated to an individual's medical need for hormone therapy, and thus, hormone therapy could be denied even when medically necessary." In his class-certification order, Winsor wrote that the named plaintiffs had met requirements to pursue a class action on the accommodations issue, concluding that "evidence shows no salient differences between named plaintiffs and other class members. All seem to have lost access to social accommodations in much the same manner." But Winsor said the named plaintiffs had not shown legal standing for class certification on the hormone-therapy issue. He wrote that all but one of the named plaintiffs "are receiving hormone treatment and have been for some time. Plaintiffs contend they nonetheless face imminent withdrawal of that treatment. But they have not shown this to be so." The class-certification ruling does not resolve the underlying legal issues in the case, which is scheduled for trial in May. The plaintiffs' attorneys contend that the state's policies violate the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment because they deny or threaten to deny medically necessary health care. The Mayo Clinic website defines gender dysphoria as a "feeling of distress that can happen when a person's gender identity differs from the sex assigned at birth." In seeking class certification, the plaintiffs' attorneys wrote that when untreated, "gender dysphoria can cause significant distress, putting people at increased risk of depression, anxiety, self-harm, and suicidality and impairing the ability to function in daily life." But lawyers for Florida Department of Corrections officials objected to class certification on hormone therapy and accommodations, which are sometimes described as "social transition." Defendants in the case are Corrections Secretary Ricky Dixon and four other officials. "With respect to social transitioning, named plaintiffs likewise possess no evidence of a violation of their rights or the rights of other putative class members; to the contrary, reasonable medical providers disagree about the medical necessity of social transitioning for inmates with gender dysphoria," the defendants' lawyers wrote in a May court document. The lawsuit has played out amid a series of controversial changes that Gov. Ron DeSantis' and the Legislature have made affecting transgender people. For example, the state barred puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The named plaintiffs in the corrections case are Nelson Boothe, a transgender man; Sheila Diamond, a transgender woman; Karter Jackson, a transgender man; Reiyn Keohane, a transgender woman; and Sasha Mendoza, a transgender woman, according to the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The document filed in May by attorneys for corrections officials used different first names for three of the plaintiffs and a different first and last name for one. [GN] FORTINET INC: Rhode Island Retirement Sues Over Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF RHODE ISLAND OFFICE OF THE GENERAL TREASURER ON BEHALF OF THE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORTINET, INC., KENNETH XIE, KEITH JENSEN, and CHRISTIANE OHLGART, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-08888 (N.D. Cal., October 16, 2025) is a securities class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all entities or persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Fortinet common stock between November 8, 2024 and August 6, 2025, inclusive, against Fortinet and certain of its current and former directors and officers for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Fortinet, Inc., based in Sunnyvale, California, was founded in 2000 by brothers Kenneth and Michael Xie. The Company describes itself as a leader in cybersecurity providing a range of hardware and software products to address their customers' network and security needs. The complaint alleges that the Company's conference calls, presentation, and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings concerning (i) the size and composition of its 2026 forced upgrade cohort, (ii) the impact of the forced upgrade on the Company's results, and (iii) the status and progress of the 2026 forced upgrade, were materially false and misleading when made because Defendants knew or deliberately disregarded and failed to disclose: (a) the number of units subject to a forced upgrade was smaller and comprised of more low-end units than represented to investors; (b) the age and cost of certain devices in the forced upgrade cohort, some of which were up to 15 years old, would not meaningfully impact current revenues; (c) Defendants lacked necessary data on the end users to assess the impact of the end-of-service event in 2026; (d) 1H25; (e) the 2026 forced upgrade cycle had materially progressed during 2H24 and in the absence of customers upgrading as part of the 2026 forced upgrade cycle, the Company's reported product sales would have been flat or negative; and (f) as a result of the foregoing, the 2026 forced upgrade cycle would not be a meaningful driver of growth for the Company during 2H25 and 2026. In response to these stunning disclosures, the Company's stock price plummeted from $96.58 per share on August 6, 2025 to $75.30 per share on August 7, 2025 on a massive increased volume of 47 million shares traded, says the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. Daniel J. Pfefferbaum, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com dpfefferbaum@rgrdlaw.com GLOBAL FEDERAL: Discloses Clients' Info to LinkedIn, Kiyabu Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ RANDY KIYABU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-02774 (C.D. Cal., October 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged disclosure of personally identifiable information provided by consumers on loan and credit card applications on its website, www.globalcu.org, to LinkedIn Corporation without consent. According to the complaint, the Defendant specifically used the tracking technology provided by LinkedIn on its website to track and utilize the Plaintiff's and Class members' PII for financial gain. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the privacy of the Plaintiff and Class members has been invaded, says the suit. Global Federal Credit Union is a provider of financial products and services, with its principal place of business in Anchorage, Alaska. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10106 Telephone: (914) 874-0710 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com GLOBAL HOME HOSPICE: Edmon Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Home Hospice Service Incorporated. The case is styled as Julia Edmon, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Global Home Hospice Service Incorporated, Case No. 25STCV30366 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 16, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Global Home Hospice Service Inc. -- https://globalhhs.com/ -- is the best choice for end of life and palliative care through the passionate pursuit of excellence and innovation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com GLOBAL IT: Jefferson Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Consultants --------------------------------------------------------------- KENDRA JEFFERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL IT RESOURCES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-02380 (C.D. Cal., October 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a healthcare IT consultant in Kenner, Louisiana between March and April 2025. Global IT Resources, Inc. is an staffing & recruitment firm based in Costa Mesa, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hoda Katebi, Esq. Harold Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. Melanie L. Alsworth, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, PC 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston MA, 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 Email: hkatebi@llrlaw.com hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com malsworth@llrlaw.com GRACE MANAGEMENT: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MADISON GARCIA, v. GRACE MANAGEMENT SERVICE, INC., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01617-CEF (N.D. Ohio), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting a two-week extension, through Nov. 3, 2025, to file their opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Defendants are not seeking any delay but need additional time in order to properly prepare their Opposition. The Defendants request the additional two-weeks due to an error in docketing the response date, which was Oct. 20, 2025. Immediately upon discovery of the error, Counsel for the Defendants contacted the Plaintiff's Counsel to request an extension, but the request was denied. Counsel for the Defendants have consented to the Plaintiff's request for additional time to file the motion for class certification. Grace provides management services on a contract or fee basis. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TZevOw at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Mark S. Fusco, Esq. Alexandra V. Dattilo, Esq. Lorraine Catalusci, Esq. WALTER | HAVERFIELD LLP 1500 W. 3rd Street, #300 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 619-7839 Facsimile: (216) 710.6263 E-mail: mfusco@walterhav.com adattilo@walterhav.com lcatalusci@walterhav.com GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT: Underpays Leasing Professionals, Williams Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- RECHEL WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC, GREYSTAR CALIFORNIA, INC., GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP, ATLAS, CP VI Franklin, LLC, DBA "Atlas" and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CV146487 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., September 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to accurately pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest breaks, failure to pay all wages earned and owed upon separation, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to maintain accurate and complete records, and failure to indemnify for necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as leasing professional in Oakland, California Greystar Management Services LLC is a property management company doing business in California. Greystar California, Inc. is a property management company doing business in California. Greystar Management Services, LP is a property management company doing business in California. Atlas is a real estate management company, doing business in California. CP VI Franklin, LLC is a limited partnership, doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald W. Makarem, Esq. Samuel D. Almon, Esq. Joshua I. Epstein, Esq. MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES APLC 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 312-0299 Facsimile: (310) 312-0296 GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE: Conway Suit Removed to S.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Gerald Conway, Hayden Johnson, Melissa Mcguire, Robert Rowland, Andrew Williams, and Domonique Wilson, on behalf of themselves individually and all others similarly situated v. GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; GREYSTAR RS NATIONAL, LLC; GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; CAMDEN PROPERTY TRUST; CAMDEN OPERATING, L.P.; CAMDEN DEVELOPMENT, INC.; CAMDEN SUMMIT PARTNERSHIP, L.P., LIVCOR, LLC; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, INC.; PINNACLE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; CORTLAND MANAGEMENT, LLC; CORTLAND SERVICES, LLC; WILLOW BRIDGE PROPERTY COMPANY, LLC; and REALPAGE, INC.; Case No. 2025-71220 was removed from the 55th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, to the United States District Court for Southern District of Texas on Oct. 17, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-04980. The Plaintiffs allege that lessors of multifamily residential rental housing colluded to use revenue management software developed by RealPage "to artificially inflate and maintain rental prices above competitive levels in Texas rental markets."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Collin J. Cox, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 811 Main Street, Suite 3000 Houston, TX 77002-6117 Phone: 346.718.6600 Facsimile: 346.718.6620 Email: ccox@gibsondunn.com - and - Jay P. Srinivasan, Esq. Daniel G. Swanson, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Phone: 213.229.7000 Facsimile: 213.229.7520 Email: jsrinivasan@gibsondunn.com dswanson@gibsondunn.com - and - Stephen Weissman, Esq. Michael J. Perry, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1700 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-4504 Phone: 202.955.8500 Facsimile: 202.467.0539 Email: sweissman@gibsondunn.com mjperry@gibsondunn.com - and - Chris Whittaker, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1200 Irvine, CA 92612-4412 Phone: 949.451.3800 Facsimile: 949.451.4220 Email: cwhittaker@gibsondunn.com - and - Ben A. Sherwood, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-0193 Phone: 212.351.4000 Facsimile: 212.351.4035 Email: bsherwood@gibsondunn.com GRIFFIN'S LANDSCAPING: Portilla Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Mario Portilla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Griffin's Landscaping Corp., Case No. 7:25-cv-08667 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2025), is brought seeking unpaid overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, statutory and liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Plaintiff consistently worked between 55 and 60 hours per workweek. For all hours the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, the Defendant failed to pay him overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay. The Defendant was aware that the Plaintiff was working these excess hours, as the Defendant assigned the work that required such hours to be completed. The Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages and spread of hours pay was a willful violation of the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendant entered into one or more contracts subject to New York Labor Law § 220 and related regulations (the "Public Works Contracts"). The Defendant breached these obligations by failing to pay the prevailing rate for all hours spent performing prevailing wage work (including travel between yards and worksites, loading/unloading, staging, and related tasks integral to the prevailing wage assignments), and by capping weekly pay at 40 regular hours notwithstanding longer workweeks, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant from June 2020 until November 2024 as a non-exempt truck driver and laborer. The Defendant is a business providing landscaping services in and around Westchester County and New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810, New York, NY 10017 Phone: 718-669-0714 Email: mgangat@gangatpllc.com GS ADMINISTRATORS: Vaccaro Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as DAVID VACCARO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GS ADMINISTRATORS, INC. and, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV27231, 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 on October 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10162 to the proceeding. In this complaint, the Plaintiff asserts on behalf of himself and the putative classes that GSA violated California Penal Code by intentionally recording a confidential communication without his and all putative Class members knowledge or consent. GS Administrators, Inc. provides warranty & insurance claims services with principal place of business in Houston, Texas.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michael Allen Marcelli, Esq. McGLINCHEY STAFFORD 2025 Main Street, Ste. 550 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 381-5927 Facsimile: (949) 608-0962 E-mail: mmarcelli@mcglinchey.com HAWTHORN SENIOR: Ortiz Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- The case ROSARIO ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HAWTHORN SENIOR LIVING, LLC and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV018240, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on October 20, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03045-DAD-SCR to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of California Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law. Hawthorn Senior Living, LLC is a retirement living services provider in California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Justin T. Curley, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Email: jcurley@seyfarth.com - and - Jeffrey A. Nordlander, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 Email: jnordlander@seyfarth.com HP INC: Fails to Provide Headset Software Support, Odinsson Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- THULR ODINSSON, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. HP, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 5:25-cv-09057 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 21, 2025) seeks to redress Defendant's failure to provide and maintain software support for its Reverb G2 virtual reality headset. The Defendant is aware of this defect in its devices yet has not remedied the defect or compensated the owners of the affected devices. On behalf of himself and the proposed class, Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution and injunctive relief against Defendant for the defects in its devices, and for its refusal to remedy those defects upon notice, the suit says. In the Spring of 2019, HP launched its first ever virtual reality headset, the HP Reverb G1, and in late 2020 HP released an updated version of the headset, the HP Reverb G2. The HP Reverb devices are high-resolution, PC-powered virtual reality headsets designed for immersive experiences in gaming, design, and professional applications. The original HP Reverb, released in 2019, features dual 2160 x 2160 LCD panels per eye, a 95° field of view, 90 Hz refresh rate, and 6 degrees of freedom (6DoF) tracking. The HP Reverb G2, released in 2020, improves on this with a 114 degree field of view, enhanced lenses and speakers developed with Valve, four built-in tracking cameras, and ergonomic controllers. Critically, the Reverb devices cannot function without a connection to a Windows computer. The Reverb devices serve as both input and output devices, with input to the computer coming from the device's controllers, and audiovisual output from the computer going to the headset's speakers and video display, alleges the suit. The Defendant sells and distributes consumer electronics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 10089 Willowcreek Road, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com - and - Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA, LLP 2 City Place Drive, Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63141-7055 Telephone: (314) 226-1015 E-mail: MFlannery@cuneolaw.com HUEL INC: Protein Powder Contains Harmful Metals, Eghbali Says -------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN J. EGHBALI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUEL INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05949 (E.D.N.Y., October 23, 2025) is a class action lawsuit against Defendant regarding the manufacture, distribution, and sale of its Huel Black Edition Protein Powder that allegedly contains unsafe levels of lead and cadmium that are falsely advertised and packaged to deceive consumers including Plaintiff. According to the complaint, the Affected Product contains unsafe levels of lead and cadmium (collectively "Heavy Metals"). The Defendant does not represent or warn consumers that such product contains lead and cadmium. The lead and cadmium levels in the Affected Product could not have been known before purchasing them and could not be determined without extensive and expensive scientific testing. Accordingly, consumers relied, and continue to rely, on Defendant to be truthful regarding the ingredients, including the presence of the Heavy Metals, in the Affected Product, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Affected Product based upon Defendant's marketing and advertising campaign. Given that Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Affected Product based on Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions, the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered an injury in the amount of the premium paid, asserts the suit. Huel Inc. operates as a specialty online retailer that manufactures, advertises, labels, and sells protein powders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark S. Reich, Esq. Michael Pollack, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall, 27th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com mpollack@zlk.com HUEL LTD: Sarayli Sues Over Vegan Protein Powder's False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------ AYKUT SARAYLI and ROBERT MASTRONARDI, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HUEL, LTD., a British limited company, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-08878 (N.D. Cal., October 16, 2025) alleges that the Black Edition Vegan Protein Powder, which are manufactured, packaged, labeled, advertised, distributed, and sold by Defendant, are misbranded and falsely advertised because they contain excessive and unsafe levels of heavy metals in violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California Business & Professions Code, and the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. According to the 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 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Agriculture's Dietary Guidelines and Daily Value requirements for all macro- and micronutrients, and proportion them to provide what you need from a meal." Specific to heavy metals, the Defendant further claims that it "analyses raw ingredients, production batches, and finished products to maintain complete oversight of supply chain." The complaint asserts that these claims are false, as independent third-party testing has revealed that the Products' contain excessive and dangerous levels of heavy metals, specifically lead and cadmium. The Defendant deceptively marketed and labeled the Product as safe while concealing and failing to disclose that the Product contain dangerous concentrations of these heavy metals, says the suit. 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 and dangerous levels of neurotoxins. The Plaintiffs and Class members suffered real economic harm. Huel, Ltd. is a British company that makes plant-based meals, snacks, drinks, and food supplements.[BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 E-mail: legal@cweller.com HUNTER DOUGLAS INC: Goins Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Alabama --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hunter Douglas, Inc. The case is styled as Joshua Goins, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Hunter Douglas, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-01792-SGC (N.D. Ala., Oct. 16, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Hunter Douglas -- https://www.hunterdouglas.com/ -- is the leading brand in fashionable, innovative window covering products for your home or office.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Matthew Stephens, Esq. METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 939-0199 Fax: (205) 939-0399 Email: mstephens@mtattorneys.com HUUUGE GLOBAL: Pless Illegal Gambling Suit Removed to E.D. Tenn. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case KAREN S. PLESS, JOE PLESS, BRAD HARDY, and MEGAN HARDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HUUUGE GLOBAL LTD., and HUUUGE INC., Case No. 2023-CV-49176, was removed from the Circuit Court of Coffee County, Tennessee, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on September 30, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00055-CLC-MJD to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged illegal gambling operation under Tennessee and Federal Law. Huuuge Inc. is a global game developer and publisher with its headquarters in Nevada. Huuuge Global Ltd. is a global game developer and publisher based in Cyprus. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: E. Britton Monroe, Esq. LLOYD, GRAY, WHITEHEAD & MONROE, P.C. 880 Montclair Road, Suite 100 Birmingham, AL 35123 Telephone: (205) 967-8822 Facsimile: (205) 967-2380 Email: bmonroe@lgwmlaw.com HYATT CORPORATION: Velasco Suit Removed to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Placida Velasco, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HYATT CORPORATION, a Delaware stock corporation doing business as Hyatt Regency Mission Bay; KATHERINE JAIME, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CU043464C was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for Southern District of California on Oct. 17, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02782-TWR-MSB. The Complaint asserts ten causes of action for violation of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, set forth as: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Timely Pay Wages; Failure to Indemnify; Violations of Labor Code and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian P. Long, Esq. Michael E. Olsen, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793 Phone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 Email: bplong@seyfarth.com molsen@seyfarth.com - and - Michael Afar, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: mafar@seyfarth.com ILLIANA TRANSIT: Faces Hernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Indiana ------------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ILLIANA TRANSIT WAREHOUSE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00485 (N.D. Ind., October 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wage Claims Statute. Mr. Hernandez worked for the Defendant from September 1, 2021 until on February 5, 2024. Illiana Transit Warehouse Corporation is a company with a facility in Lake County, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald E. Weldy, Esq. WELDY LAW 11268 Governors Lane Fishers, IN 46037 Telephone: (317) 842-6600 Facsimile: (317) 842-6933 Email: rweldy@weldylegal.com IMPACT OUTSOURCING: Boykin Balks at Layoffs Without Prior Notice ---------------------------------------------------------------- CLAUDE LEE BOYKIN, SHAQUILA BROWN, QUINCY LYNCH, LARR CHARLES WILEY, JR and TANY WILKES, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated others, Plaintiffs v. IMPACT OUTSOURCING SOLUTIONS IX, LLC and MATERIAL IN MOTION, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05966-JPB (N.D. Ga., October 17, 2025) seeks to recover 60 days of wages and benefits, pursuant to the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, along with attorneys' fees, costs, interest as allowed by law. On December 5, 2024, the Defendants verbally informed some of their second shift employees that they would be terminated, but did not inform all employees, and did not inform any in writing. The day before Christmas Eve, December 23, the Plaintiffs and some 500 to 1500 of their co-workers were summarily terminated with no advance notice as required by the WARN Act. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated others received no written notification of the layoff and only received verbal notification that morning. As a result, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated others found themselves without jobs, without warning, and without the protections provided by the WARN Act, says the suit. The Plaintiffs were employees working for Defendants Material in Motion, LLC and Impact Outsourcing Solutions IX, LLC. Material in Motion, LLC is a California based company with facilities in Santa Clara, California, the Netherlands, and Fairburn, Georgia. The Company provides logistics and supply chain management services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aaron B. Maduff, Esq. 77 W. Wacker Dr. 45th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 276-9000 E-mail: aaron@justiceatwork.com INSTITUTE OF CULINARY: Mingott Balks at Unprotected Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC MINGOTT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE INSTITUTE OF CULINARY EDUCATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08555 (S.D.N.Y., October 16, 2025) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about its current and former students, including Plaintiff but Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. Allegedly, the cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class' PII in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a data breach victim, having received a breach notice. He brings this class action on behalf of himself, and all others harmed by Defendant's misconduct. The Institute of Culinary Education, Inc. offers culinary and hospitality education with its principal place of business in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda H. Joseph, Esq. SCHRODER, JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES, LLP 394 Franklin Street, 2nd Floor Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 861-1398 Facsimile: (716) 881-4909 E-mail: ljoseph@sjalegal.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL: Mackeigan Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against International Travel Network LLC d/b/a ASAP Tickets. The case is captioned as MICHAEL MACKEIGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL NETWORK LLC D/B/A ASAP TICKETS, Case No. 4:25-cv-09019-HSG (N.D. Cal., October 21, 2025). The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. International Travel Network LLC, doing business as ASAP Tickets, is a provider of technology-based service for airlines based in Delaware. [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 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com JAMES HARDIE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud -------------------------------------------------------------- Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against James Hardie Industries plc (NYSE: JHX) and certain of the Company's senior executives for securities fraud after significant stock drop resulting from the potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in James Hardie, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/james-hardie-industries-class-action-lawsuit. Investors have until December 23, 2025, to ask the Court to be appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in James Hardie common stock (formerly American Depositary Shares). The class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and is captioned Laborers' District Council and Contractors' Pension Fund of Ohio v. James Hardie Industries plc, et al., No. 1:25-cv-13018. Why Was James Hardie Sued for Securities Fraud? James Hardie is a producer and marketer of high-performance fiber cement building solutions. The largest application for the Company's fiber cement building products in the United Stated and Canada is in external siding for the residential building industry. During the relevant period, James Hardie told investors that the results of its North American fiber cement segment demonstrated its "inherent strength" and "the underlying momentum in our strategy." The Company also stated on May 20, 2025, that it was seeing "normal stock levels" among its customers and that it was "seeing performance in the month to date as we would expect." As alleged, in truth, the Company's North American sales during the relevant period were the result of inventory loading by channel partners, with the hallmarks of fraudulent channel stuffing, not sustainable customer demand as represented. The Stock Declines as the Truth Is Revealed On August 19, 2025, James Hardie revealed that its North American fiber cement sales declined 12% during the quarter, driven by destocking first discovered "in April through May" as customers "made efforts to return to more normal inventory levels[.]" The Company also revealed that significant inventory destocking was expected to continue to impact sales for the next several quarters. On this news, the price of James Hardie stock fell $9.79 per share, or more than 34%, from $28.43 per share on August 19, 2025, to $18.64 per share on August 20, 2025. Visit link for more information: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/james-hardie-industries-class-action-lawsuit. What Can You Do? If you invested in James Hardie you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/james-hardie-industries-class-action-lawsuit Or contact: Ross Shikowitz ross@bfalaw.com (212) 789-3619 Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? BFA is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It has been named a top plaintiff law firm by Chambers USA, The Legal 500, and ISS SCAS, and its attorneys have been named "Elite Trial Lawyers" by the National Law Journal, among the top "500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers" by Lawdragon, "Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar" by Law360 and "SuperLawyers" by Thomson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit https://www.bfalaw.com. [GN] JAVVY COFFEE COMPANY: Osborn Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Javvy Coffee Company. The case is styled as Christie Osborn, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Javvy Coffee Company, Case No. 3:25-cv-08218-SMB (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 11, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment Javvy Coffee Company -- https://javvycoffee.com/ -- is an operator of a coffee brand intended to offer original concentrated coffee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com JEFFREY RICHARDSON: Blosser Seeks Approval of $1.25MM Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nicole M. Blosser, individually, derivatively on behalf of Renaissance Tower Horizontal Property Regime, and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, et al. v. Jeffrey L. Richardson; William S. Spears; Brent M. Whitesell; Laurie Z. Wunderley; Madeline R. Mercer; Catherine M. Gregor; Dennis J. Sassa; Tracy A. Meadows; Peter A. Grusauskas; and William Douglas Management, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-03556-SAL (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting final certification of a settlement class, granting final approval of the class action settlement preliminarily approved by this Court, and granting the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs request the Court grant final certification for settlement purposes only of the following Class under Rule 23(b)(3): "All persons or entities who owned a residential condominium unit in the Renaissance Tower Horizontal Property Regime on Oct. 7, 2022, excluding: (a) any Judge presiding over this action and members of their families; (b) Defendants and their spouses, parents, children, siblings, and any entity for which a majority ownership interest is held alone or in combination by Defendants and their spouses, parents, children, and siblings; and (c) all persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class in accordance with the orders of this Court and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." The Plaintiffs filed this putative class and derivative action on Oct. 13, 2022, on behalf of condominium owners in the Renaissance Tower building in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. The Settlement Fund Defendants have agreed to pay a total settlement amount of $1,250,000.00. Of the $1,250,000 total settlement amount, assuming the Court approves the requested attorneys' fees and expenses: -- $703,211.33 would be paid to the class, resulting in payments to the owners of each condominium in the class ranging from $1,378.61 to $3,446.91, based on the size and number of units owned as of October 7, 2023, and as set forth on the table attached hereto as Exhibit B; -- $50,000 would be paid to the HPR; -- $60,000 would be paid ($3,000 per unit) to the individual plaintiffs in addition to the funds those individuals and entities receive as members of the class, as additional compensation reflecting the strength of their individual claims that are not contingent on class certification and the extensive time and efforts those individuals and entities expended pursing the claims; -- $312,500 would be paid in attorneys' fees to Plaintiffs' counsel; and -- $124,288.67 would be paid in expense reimbursements to Plaintiffs’ counsel. The Plaintiffs include Azure Bleu, LLC; Edelyne Beauvais-Thomas; Jason E. Blosser; Eshellah D. Calhoun; Zachary G. Calhoun; David DiMaio; Linda DiMaio; Susan H. Ferguson; Four Parts Whole, LLC; Sharon M. Hubbard; Liberty Property Holdings SC, LLC; Carol A. Messenger; Jeffrey S. Palmer; Summalin, Inc.; Terry J. Tuminello; Shelley Ware; and Jonathan S. Williams, William provides property management and financial services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A4H6rW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: F. Elliotte Quinn IV, Esq. Rachel Igdal, Esq. THE STEINBERG LAW FIRM, LLC 3955 Faber Place Dr., Ste. 300 North Charleston, SC 29405 Telephone: (843) 720-2800 E-mail: equinn@steinberglawfirm.com rigdal@steinberglawfirm.com - and - Jaan G. Rannik, Esq. EPTING & RANNIK, LLC 44 Old Queechy Road Canaan, NY 12029 Telephone: (843) 377-1871 E-mail: jgr@epting-law.com JOONGANGILBO USA: Lee Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Newspaper Staff ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH KWANGJO LEE, SEHWA JEON, JINA PARK, and CHRISTINE LEE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOONGANGILBO USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03719 (D.D.C., October 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act Revision Act of 1992, the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the District of Columbia Wage Payment and Wage Collection Act, and the District of Columbia Accrued Safe and Sick Leave Act including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, and failure to provide sick leave. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant in The Korea Daily News Bureau located at 529 14th Street NW, Suite 941, Washington D.C. Joongangilbo USA, Inc. is a newspaper operator, headquartered in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew T. Sutter, Esq. SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC 7540A Little River Turnpike Annandale, VA 22003 Telephone: (703) 256-1800 Facsimile: (703) 991-6116 Email: matt@sutterandterpak.com - and - Yeoup Ryu, Esq. EQUITUS LAW FIRM, PLLC 4306 Evergreen Lane, Suite 202 Annandale, VA 22003 Telephone: (703) 546-8538 Facsimile: (703) 890-1616 Email: yryu@equituslegal.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Class Action Suit for Fixing Interest Rates ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Sutton, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that two consumers filed a class action lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citibank, U.S. Bank, PNC Bank and Truist Bank. Why: The lawsuit alleges the banks colluded to fix interest rates on consumer and small-business loans for more than 30 years. Where: The lawsuit was filed in a Connecticut federal court. A pair of consumers filed a new class action lawsuit against some of the nation's largest banks, alleging they colluded to fix interest rates on consumer and small-business loans for more than 30 years. The lawsuit, filed Oct. 16 in a Connecticut federal court, names JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citibank, U.S. Bank, PNC Bank and Truist Bank as defendants. The plaintiffs, Tracy Normandin and J. Allen Sensabaugh, allege the banks conspired to fix, raise and stabilize interest rates on a massive number of loans by agreeing on the prime rates they charged their most creditworthy customers. According to the lawsuit, the banks' collusive prime rates were then reported by The Wall Street Journal as the “WSJ Prime Rate,” which serves as a component of the interest rate on trillions of dollars in variable-rate loans. The class action lawsuit alleges the banks' conspiracy artificially inflated interest rates for millions of loans explicitly tied to the WSJ Prime Rate, including home equity lines of credit (HELOCs) and consumer credit cards. The plaintiffs argue that the banks' collusion eliminated competitive variation in prime rate spreads, resulting in a fixed spread of 300 basis points over the Federal Reserve's target rate for more than three decades. As a result, the plaintiffs claim they paid supracompetitive interest rates on their WSJ Prime-indexed loans and are seeking to recover damages for the alleged overcharges. Lawsuit: Banks' collusion began after WSJ changed reporting method The class action lawsuit alleges the banks' collusion began after The Wall Street Journal changed its method for reporting prime rates in 1992, which pushed banks to agree on a single consensus rate. The plaintiffs claim this change made it easier for banks to coordinate prices and raise them marketwide, as the Journal's new methodology identified WSJ Prime as the market consensus price. The lawsuit also alleges the banks' collusion was facilitated by the Federal Reserve's decision to begin publishing explicit targets for the federal funds rate in 1994, which allowed the banks to peg their prime rates to these publicly available benchmarks. The plaintiffs argue the banks' conspiracy has persisted despite significant changes in the banking industry over the past 30 years, including regulatory reforms and the digital transformation of the industry. As a result, the plaintiffs claim the banks' collusion is a per se violation of federal antitrust laws and are seeking treble damages for the alleged overcharges. In related news, another JPMorgan Chase class action lawsuit alleges the bank fraudulently solicited consumers to purchase credit card memberships by promising automatic credits for certain purchases but then failed to provide those credits. The plaintiffs are represented by Peter Cherepanov, Patrick McGahan, Michael Srodoski, Erin Dennehy, Carmen Medici, Patrick Rodriguez, Karin E. Garvey and Matthew Perez of Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP. The JPMorgan Chase and major banks class action lawsuit is Normandin, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01749, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. [GN] KALSHIEX LLC: Yee Sues Over Unlawful Sports Gambling Platform ------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL YEE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KALSHIEX LLC; KALSHI INC; KALSHI KLEAR LLC; KALSHI KLEAR INC., KALSHI TRADING LLC, and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08585 (S.D.N.Y., October 16, 2025) alleges that the Defendants operate an unlawful sports gambling platform, falsely claiming that sports betting is "now legal in all fifty states." Despite Kalshi's bold claim, which it makes across the country, Kalshi's operations violate the specific laws of over two dozen additional states that prohibit gambling or expressly allow for the recovery of gambling losses. And as a New York headquartered company that includes a New York choice of law clause in its terms of service, Kalshi is subject to the licensing and registration requirements of New York -- yet, it failed to comply with those regulations, rendering the rest of its nationwide operations illegal too, says the suit. Based on Kalshi's false representations, Plaintiff Yee and the Classes bargained for entry into legal sports gambling contests. But all they received from Kalshi was entry into illegal sports gambling contests. The Plaintiff and the Classes did not receive the benefit of the bargain, as the illegal entries had substantially less (in fact zero) value than entry into legal contests. Moreover, if Kalshi had accurately disclosed the unlawful nature of the gambling services, the Plaintiff and the Classes would not have purchased Kalshi's sports gambling services at all, the suit contends. KalshiEX LLC operates a prediction market with principal place of business in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Bilsborrow, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 344-5461 E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com - and - Michael Piggins, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG PC 3011 W. Grand Blvd., Fl. 24 Detroit, MI 48202 Telephone: (231) 366-3108 E-mail: mpiggins@weitzlux.com - and - Margot P. Cutter, Esq. Charles B. Stevens, Esq. CUTTER LAW, P.C. 401 Watt Ave. Sacramento, CA 95864 Telephone: (916) 290-9400 E-mail: mcutter@cutterlaw.com cstevens@cutterlaw.com - and - Wesley M. Griffith, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 111 W. Ocean Blvd, Suite 426 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (310) 896-5813 E-mail: wes@almeidalawgroup.com - and - F. Peter Silva II, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 333 H Street, Suite 5000 Chula Vista, CA 91911 Telephone: (510) 588-5299 E-mail: psilva@tzlegal.com - and - Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq. Robert M. Devling, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com rdevling@tzlegal.com - and - Christopher Nienhaus, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Ave., Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (708) 529-5418 E-mail: chris@almeidalawgroup.com KEURIG DR PEPPER: Settles K-Cups Class Action Suit for $1.85MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Cousins, writing for Financial Post, reports that Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. has settled a class-action lawsuit related to the recyclability of its K-Cups for $1.85 million, offering customers up to $50 in damages. The settlement, subject to court approval in December, is available to all Canadians who purchased the coffee pods or a Keurig coffee machine between June 8, 2016, and the present day. The lawsuit alleged that Keurig K-Cup pods and brewing machines "contained misleading representations as to the recyclability of the pods contrary to the Competition Act and the common law." Keurig has denied any wrongdoing and said its conduct was lawful. Keurig said K-Cups are available for recycling in "various regions," including British Columbia and Quebec, with more provinces expected to join the list in 2026. "The company remains committed to advancing sustainable solutions and to working with consumers, municipalities, and partners to ensure that its products can be effectively collected, sorted, and recycled," a spokesperson for the company said in a statement. Claimants without proof of purchase will be able to get up to $7 per person, while those with proof will be offered 50 cents for each 10-pod purchase, up to $50. Those with proof of a coffee machine purchase and one pod purchase will be able to claim up to $25. In 2022, the Competition Bureau fined Keurig Canada $3 million and ordered it to make an $800,000 charitable donation over environmental claims the company made about the recyclability of its pods. At the time, the bureau said the claims that the pods are recyclable were misleading in areas where they are not accepted for recycling. "Keurig Canada's claims give the impression that consumers can prepare the pods for recycling by peeling the lid off and emptying out the coffee grounds, but some local recycling programs require additional steps to recycle the pods," the Competition Bureau said in 2022. Those looking to submit a claim will be able to do so at https://kcupsrecyclingsettlement.ca/. [GN] KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Kotex Click Tampons -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Stephanie Foster filed a class action lawsuit against Kimberly-Clark Corp. Why: Foster claims Kimberly-Clark fails to disclose that its U by Kotex Click tampons contain lead. Where: The Kotex class action was filed in Illinois federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Kimberly-Clark of failing to disclose that its U by Kotex Click tampons contain lead. Plaintiff Stephanie Foster claims Kimberly-Clark misleadingly markets its U by Kotex Click tampons as containing "no harsh ingredients" and being "pesticide free." Foster argues that Kimberly-Clark's marketing claims are intended to lead consumers to believe the tampons are free from potentially harmful ingredients. The Kotex class action goes on to note that Kimberly-Clark is a leading manufacturer of tampons in the United States, with the North American tampon market generating $1.98 billion in revenue in 2023. Foster wants to represent a class of consumers who purchased U by Kotex Click tampons in the United States, excluding California, for personal use and who do not claim any personal injury from using the products. Foster also wants to represent a multistate consumer protection class and an Illinois subclass. Lead contamination 'substantial' Kotex class action claims Foster claims independent scientific testing commissioned by her counsel found that all sizes and configurations of Kimberly-Clark's U by Kotex Click tampons contain a "substantial amount" of lead. "Consumers, including Plaintiff, do not want to purchase tampons containing lead," the Kotex class action alleges. Foster claims Kimberly-Clark's failure to disclose that its tampons contain lead deprived consumers of the opportunity to make an informed choice between its products and other menstrual products that do not contain lead. Foster asserts that she and other consumers would not have purchased U by Kotex Click tampons if they had known the products contained lead. She claims Kimberly-Clark is guilty of negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and state consumer fraud and consumer protection acts. Foster demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of actual, general, special, incidental, punitive, statutory and consequential damages for herself and all class members. Last year, Procter & Gamble Company faced a lawsuit claiming their line of Tampax-brand tampons contained unsafe levels of lead. Foster is represented by Michael Aschenbrener of KamberLaw LLC and Naomi B. Spector of KamberLaw LLP. The Kotex class action lawsuit is Stephanie Foster v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., Case No. 1:25-cv-09736, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN] LAFAYETTE ASSOCIATES: Gonzalez Seeks Unpaid Wages for Dishwashers ----------------------------------------------------------------- SANTOS BRAVO GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAFAYETTE ASSOCIATES LLC (D/B/A CAFE SELECT), OLIVER STUMM, SERGE BECKER and DOMINIQUE CLAUSEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08682 (S.D.N.Y., October 20, 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 pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed as a dishwasher at the Swiss bar/cafe located at 212 Lafayette Street, New York, New York from approximately 2008 until in or about March 2020 and from approximately August 2021 until on or about May 29, 2024. Lafayette Associates LLC, doing business as Cafe Select, is a bar/cafe owner and operator, located at 212 Lafayette Street, 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 LDASH7 LLC: Cheng Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ldash7, LLC. The case is styled as Christopher Cheng, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ldash7, LLC, Case No. 7:25-cv-08578 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment Ldash7, LLC -- https://ldash7.com/ -- offers aid when it comes to buying houses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 26 Grand Georgian Ct Cartersville, GA 30121 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com LEXXOUR HOME CARE: Jason Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lexxour Home Care LLC, et al. The case is styled as Ashlyn Jason, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Lexxour Home Care LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0015431 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Oct. 17, 2025). The case type is stated "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Lexxour Home Care LLC is a healthcare organization in Tracy, California with a specialty of In Home Supportive Care Agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hannah Becker, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP P.C. 1801 Century Park E, Ste. 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2346 Phone: 310-824-3828 Fax: 310-862-6851 Email: jm@melmedlaw.com LGS STAFFING: Flores Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Anthony Flores, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the State of California and other aggrieved persons v. LGS STAFFING LLC, a limited liability company; JOBANDTALENT HIRINGS LLC, a limited liability company; SHIPBOB, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2503565 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Oct. 17, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02755. The Complaint asserts the following ten causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Timely Pay All Wages Due Upon Separation of Employment; Failure to Pay Timely Wages During Employment; Failure to Indemnify Employees for Expenditures; Unfair Business Practices; and Civil Penalties Under PAGA.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jyoti Mittal, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Phone: 310.553.0308 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: jmittal@littler.com - and - Samuel A. Richman, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.443.4300 Facsimile: 800.715.1330 Email: sarichman@littler.com LOCATEL STORES: Wohlstein Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Locatel Stores Operations, LLC. The case is styled as Daniel Wohlstein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Locatel Stores Operations, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-62092-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 16, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment Locatel Stores Operations LLC -- https://www.locatelonline.com/ -- retails medical equipment. The Company offers pharmacy, optical, hearing aids, skin care, homeopathy, and baby maternity services as well as equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com LUCID GROUP: Lopez Sues Over Blind User-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ VICTOR LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUCID GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-08687 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 21, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://lucidmotors.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 Defendant operates the Lucid Motors online interactive Website and retail store across the United States. This online interactive Website and retail store constitute a place of public accommodation because it is a sales establishment.[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 MAC-CLARK RESTAURANTS: Faber Suit Transferred to N.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kathleen R. Faber, Lexis Mays, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Mac-Clark Restaurants, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-12694 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York on Oct. 20, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-01457-GTS-DJS to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation. Mac Clark Restaurants Inc is a well-established dining establishment in Clinton, New York, offering a diverse menu of delicious dishes to satisfy a range of tastes.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mason A. Barney, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 5the Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: mbarney@sirillp.com MASALA CAFE: Vuppala Sues Over Property's Architectural Barriers ---------------------------------------------------------------- KIRAN VUPPALA, Plaintiff v. MASALA CAFE NEWARK LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company, d/b/a MASALA CAFE CHETTINAD, and STAR ASSOCIATES, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-16847-MEF-JSA (D.N.J., October 22, 2025) is a class action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff suffers from a condition that constitutes a "qualified disability" under the ADA, in that he is a paraplegic and uses a wheelchair for mobility. According to the complaint, the Defendants have discriminated, and continue to discriminate, against the Plaintiff, and others who are similarly situated, by denying full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations at Defendants' real property, and by failing to remove architectural barriers pursuant to ADA, where such removal is readily achievable. Masala Cafe Newark LLC, is the owner, lessee and/or operator of the real property based in New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Mirel, Esq. THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A. 18305 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 214 Aventura, FL 33160 Telephone: (305) 949-7777 Facsimile: (305) 704-3877 E-mail: rjm@weitzfirm.com MAVIS TIRE SUPPLY: Webb Files Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mavis Tire Supply LLC. The case is styled as Joyette Webb, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mavis Tire Supply LLC d/b/a Mavis Discount Tire, Case No. 7:25-cv-08615 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 17, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Mavis Tire -- https://www.mavis.com/ -- is an American automotive service chain that provides tire sales, installation, and vehicle maintenance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (646) 357-1100 Fax: (212) 202-4322 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com MBM MANAGEMENT: Faber Suit Transferred to D. Kansas --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kathleen R. Faber, Lexis Mays, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MBM Management Incorporated, Case No. 1:25-cv-12693 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on Oct. 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:25-cv-01226-JWB-BGS to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. MBM Business Management -- https://mbm-inc.ca/ -- is a licensed general contracting company based in Chicago, specializing in high-quality residential and commercial remodeling.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa R. Considine, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: lconsidine@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com MERCK & CO: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Benson Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY BENSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCK & CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08656 (S.D.N.Y., October 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. 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, www.merck.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 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. Merck & Co., Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in 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 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com MOLO SOLUTIONS: Underpays Carrier Sales Specialists, Seales Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SEAN SEALES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOLO SOLUTIONS, LLC, ARCBEST II, INC., and ARCBEST CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-12836 (N.D. Ill., October 21, 2025) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, seeking backpay, liquidated and treble damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other relief to which Plaintiff and all others similarly situated are entitled. Plaintiff Seales is an Illinois resident, and was employed by Defendants from April 22, 2024 through July 19, 2025, in the role of "Carrier Sales Specialist." The Defendants have violated provisions of the state and federal Laws by failing to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees for overtime wages and all wages and compensation owed. Molo Solutions, LLC provides freight brokerage services with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com - and - Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq. Sarah M. Block, Esq. Patrick J. Miller-Bartley, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave., N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 E-mail: gkm@mselaborlaw.com smb@mselaborlaw.com pmb@mselaborlaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Phelps Sues Over Herbicide Roundup Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca B. Phelps, on behalf of the Estate of Matthew J. Phelps, deceased, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02052 (W.D. Wash., October 21, 2025) is an action for damages suffered by Decedent, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by Decedent through exposure to Roundup(R) containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine. The Decedent was exposed to Roundup from 2000 to 2019 while applying it to their residential property. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Decedent developed Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. The Decedent died on October 2, 2019, as a result of Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma. He was 50 years of age. The Decedent suffered life-threatening NHL, and severe personal injuries, which were permanent and lasting in nature, physical pain and mental anguish, including diminished enjoyment of life, until the time of Decedent's death due to NHL, alleges the suit. Monsanto Company was an American corporation producing chemical, agricultural, and biochemical products, founded in 1901, and acquired by Bayer in 2018.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark W.D. O'Halloran, Esq. GOSANKO O'HALLORAN & LEPORE, PLLC 7900 SE 28th Street, Suite 500 Mercer Island, WA 98040-6004 Telephone: (206) 275-0700 Facsimile: (206) 275-2207 E-mail: mark@gosankolaw.com NATIONAL NOTARY: Hawkins Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Notary Association, et al. The case is styled as Jenifer Hawkins, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. National Notary Association, NNA Services LLC, Case No. 25STCV30828 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 21, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." National Notary Association -- https://www.nationalnotary.org/ -- is the nation's leader in providing Notary information, products, services, classes, bonds, stamps, applications and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Quadrel, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW, APC 8383 Wilshire Boulevard., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: 310-622-4278 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: rquadrel@blackstonepc.com NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Tal-Mason Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as David Tal-Mason, on his own behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC doing business as: Rushmore Servicing, formerly known as: Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, Case No. CACE-25-008325 was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Oct. 21, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-62118-XXXX to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, doing business as Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC -- https://www.rushmoreservicing.com/ -- offers mortgage services.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Jason Richard Bowyer, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 50 N. Laura Street, Suite 3300 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Phone: (904) 798-3230 Email: jbowyer@mcguirewoods.com NEW YORK, NY: A.M. Files Suit Over Bullying and False Claim ----------------------------------------------------------- A.M., a minor, by and through his mother and natural guardian, Darlene Martinez, and Darlene Martinez, individually on her own behalf, Plaintiffs v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, BENJAMIN BASILE, Principal of the Mott Hall Community Center and JOHANNY LOPEZ LAWSON, Assistant Principal of the Mott Hall Community School, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08579 (S.D.N.Y., October 16, 2025) alleges retaliation against Plaintiffs' exercise of their First Amendment Rights, protected by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and the First Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. A.M., a son of Plaintiff Martinez and her husband Alonzo Martinez, experienced bullying as a new sixth grade student in a special program for autistic children housed in Mott Hall Community School, located in Bronx, New York. Defendants Basile and Lawson were responsible for addressing the harm to A.M., but responded ineffectively to Mrs. Martinez' complaints. They continued to ignore her until she elevated her concerns with a written complaint provided to the Welcome Center, an agency of the New York City Department of Education. Unbeknownst to Mrs. Martinez at that time, this written complaint was forwarded immediately to Mott Hall and reached Basile and Lawson. Her written complaint prompted an immediate retaliatory response in the form of an anonymous call to Safe Horizon, a city agency working with the New York City Police Department and to Childrens' Protective Services, alleging a false defamatory claim that A.M. had sexually touched a female student in class on October 18, 2024. A.M. was not even in school that day, or the day before, as he was out sick. On information and belief, Defendants Basile and Lawson were behind this false claim. The communication of this false claim was intentional. It was designed to injure A.M. and his family. And it was motivated by pure malice to retaliate against Mrs. Martinez for communicating her concerns about her son's welfare at Mott Hall and about the inaction of Basile and Lawson. These events caused immediate and long term psychological and emotional injury to A.M. and Mrs. Martinez, the suit asserts. The Plaintiffs also allege common law torts, including defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent supervision and retention. New York City Department of Education operates and runs public schools in the five boroughs of Manhattan, New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alan S. Futerfas LAW OFFICES OF ALAN S. FUTERFAS 565 Fifth Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 684-8400 E-mail: asfuterfas@futerfaslaw.com OURARING INC: Stephenson Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- JARON STEPHENSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OURARING INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08559 (S.D.N.Y., October 16, 2025) is a civil action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.ouraring.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. On August 12, and August 15, 2025, the Plaintiff visited the website intending to purchase the Oura Ring Horizon model in Silver and evaluate subscription tiers, including the Premium plan offering advanced sleep and stress analytics. The Plaintiff attempted to complete checkout, review product specifications, and access terms of service. However, he was obstructed by multiple accessibility barriers, including unlabeled form fields in the checkout flow, inaccessible modal dialogs for subscription selection, and non-descriptive link text that prevented him from confirming product details and completing the transaction. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction compelling Defendant to revise its corporate policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that its website becomes -- and remains -- accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Ouraring Inc. operates the website that markets the Oura Ring as a health optimization tool for sleep, stress, and cardiovascular monitoring.[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 PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER: Appeals Court Order in Golden Suit to E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------- PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY is taking an appeal from a court order granting in part the Plaintiff's motion for contempt in the lawsuit entitled Tashanna B. Golden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Firstmark Services LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1-17-01005-ess, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York. The appellate case is entitled Tashanna B. Golden v. Firstmark Services LLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-05849-ENV, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, filed on October 20, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee TASHANNA B. GOLDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: George F. Carpinello, Esq. Adam R. Shaw, Esq. Jenna C. Smith, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER, LLP 30 South Pearl Street, 12th Floor Albany, NY 12207 - and - Lynn E. Swanson, Esq. JONES SWANSON HUDDELL LLC Pan-American Life Center 601 Poydras Street, Suite 2655 New Orleans, LA 70130 Defendant-Appellant PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY is represented by: H. Peter Haveles, Jr., Esq. Ashley Akapo, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 37th Floor New York, NY 10020 PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Green Seeks to Clarify Class Notice Order -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LANCE GREEN and ANDERSON KHALID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PERRY'S RESTAURANTS LTD; PERRY’S STEAKHOUSE OF COLORADO, LLC, collectively d/b/a PERRY'S STEAKHOUSE AND GRILLE, Case No. 1:21-cv-00023-WJM-NRN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order enforcing its class certification Order including its Order governing notice, and clarifying that the Rule 23 class in this case includes all "current and former" servers who worked for Perry's in Colorado at any time since Jan. 5, 2018—the individuals identified on the Defendants' updated "class list" that was produced on April 1, 2025 pursuant to the Court's Order. The Plaintiffs are forced to file this motion to enforce and/or clarify the Orders governing class certification and class notice because Defendants have just now disclosed that they are taking the position that the class in this case is limited only to servers who started working at Perry's in Colorado prior to Jan. 5, 2021. The Plaintiffs request that the Court resolve the issue now because trial will be scheduled shortly, and the Plaintiffs need to know the scope of their class, and they are entitled to the data that is consistent with the class definition. While Plaintiffs have also raised this issue as a discovery dispute with Magistrate Judge Neureiter, the Defendants have not refused to—and in fact recently did-supplement their document production, but only for the individuals who fall within Defendants' recently narrowed class definition. In other words, Defendants have only refused to supplement their document production for anyone who they now assert do not fall within their recently truncated definition of the class. Therefore, this does not appear to be a discovery dispute, but rather an eleventh hour disagreement over who qualifies as a class member. On Dec. 18, 2024, the Court certified a Rule 23 class of: "All of Defendants' current and former employees who worked as servers in at least one week in Colorado within the three (3) year proceeding the filing of this lawsuit and who were paid a subminimum hourly wage pursuant to Colorado Wage Law." Perry's provides grilled food processing services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TtwTeZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Harold Lichten, Esq. Matthew Thomson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 -and- E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com mthomson@llrlaw.com - and - Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 479-9229 Facsimile: (817) 840-5102 E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com PERUZZI IMPORTS INC: Litka Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peruzzi Imports, Inc. The case is styled as Breanna Litka, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Peruzzi Imports, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-06051 (E.D. Pa., Oct. 22, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Peruzzi Auto Group-- https://www.peruzzi.com/ -- offers new and used cars, including brands like Toyota, Buick, and GMC, plus service, collision, and finance centers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Matthew R. Snyder, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC 21031 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364-6522 Phone: 323-306-4234 Fax: 866-633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com msnyder@toddflaw.com PESI INC: Class Cert. Order Entered in Manza Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dana Manza, v. Pesi, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00690 (W.D. Wisc., Filed Oct. 3, 2024), the Hon. Judge James D. Peterson entered an order as follows: -- If the parties do not respond by Nov. 10, 2026, the court will construe their silence to mean that they have settled the individual claim and are not seeking class certification, and the court will dismiss the case. The parties notified the court that they had settled this proposed class action, and they represented that they would file a motion for preliminary approval "within 30 days." The parties did not ask for a stay, and the court did not provide one, telling the parties that it would strike deadlines if and when the parties move for preliminary approval. The parties have filed nothing with the court since then. The deadline for seeking class certification is November 10, so the parties may have until then to do one of three things: (1) move for preliminary approval of their settlement; (2) move for class certification; or (3) show cause why they cannot comply with (1) or (2). PESI provides training and resources for healthcare, mental health, and rehabilitation.[CC] PFP INDUSTRIES: Jackson Suit Seeks FLSA Certification ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. PFP INDUSTRIES, LLC, Case No. 7:24-cv-00167-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting motion and stipulation regarding Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) certification and notice: The Parties have conferred and agree to stipulate to the Court entering an Order certifying a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) as follows: "All Contractors who worked for PfP Industries, LLC, were paid a day rate, did not receive overtime, and worked more than 40 hours in a workweek within three years of the Court's Order granting collective certification." The Parties ask that the Court enter an Order certifying that collective and authorizing the issuance of notice. This Agreed Motion and Stipulation is not an admission as to any underlying substantive issue in this lawsuit by Defendant. The Parties additionally ask the Court to enter an Order: 1. Approving the Parties' proposed Notice and Consent to Join Form (“Notice”), which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 2. Requiring Defendant to supply the Plaintiff's counsel with a computer-readable file of all putative collective members’ names, last known mailing addresses, alternate addresses, and dates of work within 14 days of the Court granting collective certification. 3. Permitting Plaintiff’s counsel to retain a claims administrator to oversee the notice and consent to join process. The Parties submit that they will file a joint status report advising the court of Notice distribution within 10 days of the Notice being mailed to the putative collective members. Last, the Parties request such other and further relief to which they may be justly entitled relative to the subject matter of this Motion. PFP supplies guar gum, stimulation chemicals, and related products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y7LTRb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander White, Esq. VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP 600 Old Country Road, Suite 519 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7180 E-mail: awhite@vkv.law - and - Jay D. Ellwanger ELLWANGER HENDERSON LLLP 11149 Research Blvd., Ste. 100 Austin, TX 78759 Telephone: (737) 808-2262 Facsimile: (737) 808-2262 E-mail: jellwanger@equalrights.law The Defendant is represented by: Kelly Robreno Koster, Esq. Garret Messerly, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 1000 Louisana Street, Suite 6700 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 374-3553 PHH MORTGAGE: Fact Discovery in Graham Due April 14, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HELANA GRAHAM, v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, AMERICA SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, ASSURANT INC. NEWREZ LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00432-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Wendy Beetlestone entered a Scheduling Order as follows: 1. All fact discovery shall be completed by April 14, 2026. Any expert reports relating to class certification are due no later than May 14, 2026. 2. Any rebuttal reports relating to class certification are due no later than June 4, 2026. 3. Any discovery depositions of expert witnesses relating to class certification shall be completed by June 25, 2026. 4. Any motions for class certification and/or Daubert motions regarding expert witnesses relating to class certification shall be filed and served on or before July 30, 2026. Any oppositions to such motions shall be filed and served on or before Aug. 31, 2026. Any reply in support of such motions shall be filed and served on or before Sept. 21, 2026. 5. Any expert reports relating to the merits of the case are due no later than 120 days after the Court's disposition of any motions for class certification. Any rebuttal reports relating the merits of the case are due 30 days thereafter. Any discovery depositions of expert witnesses relating to the merits of the case are due 30 days thereafter. 6. Any party expecting to offer opinion testimony from lay witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 701 with respect to the issues of liability and damages shall, at the time required for submission of information and/or reports for expert witnesses, serve opposing parties with details and/or documents covering the lay opinions of the Rule 701 witnesses. 7. Any motions for summary judgment and/or Daubert motions shall be filed and served no later than 30 days after the date that discovery depositions of expert witnesses relating to the merits of the case are due. PHH provides mortgage financing solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CHxwCr at no extra charge.[CC] PORSCHE AG: Klein Renewed Bid for Class Cert. Tossed ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Allison Klein et al., v. Dr. Ing. H.C.F. Porsche AG et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-10079-MWC-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered an order: -- denying the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification, -- denying as moot the Defendants' motions to exclude experts, -- denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude expert, and -- overruling the Plaintiff's evidentiary objections. In this motion for class certification, the Plaintiffs seek certification of two California classes and two subclasses, two different vehicle defects, three causes of action, and various theories of liability. The Plaintiffs' failure to prove that every Rule 23(a) requirement is met as to this proposed class is grounds to deny the Motion. Given that Plaintiffs seek to certify two classes and two subclasses concerning two different vehicle defects over three causes of action relying on multiple theories of liability, Plaintiffs needed to match at least one common question of law or fact to any element of their claims. Although Plaintiffs have not proven the Rule 23(a) requirements are met, the Court has considered the parties’ arguments and offers the following findings regarding predominance. The first proposed class is: "All persons who purchased a Porsche Macan vehicle, other than a wholly electric Macan, regardless of trim level, between Jan. 1, 2014 and present, within California and primarily for personal, family or household purposes" ("The Macan Suspension Defect Class"). This class would be certified as to (i) an Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") (Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq.) unlawful prong claim predicated on a violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act's warranty of merchantability provision, and (ii) an unjust enrichment claim, both pertaining to the suspension defect. Klein, Wu, and Lee would be the class representatives. The first proposed subclass, related to The Macan Suspension Defect Class, consists of: "All persons who purchased a new Macan between Dec. 1, 2015 and present." A Macan is 'new' if, at the time of purchase, it has not been previously purchased by anyone other than Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, their affiliates, or an authorized Porsche dealership. ("The New Macan Suspension Defect Subclass"). The Macan Suspension Defect Class would be certified as to (i) a UCL fraudulent prong claim, and (ii) a Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) (California Civil Code §§ 1750 et seq.) claim, both predicated on the concealment of the existence of the suspension defect. The second proposed class is: "All persons who purchased a model year 2015 2018 Macan S, GTS, or Turbo Porsche Macan, between Jan. 1, 2014 and present, within California and primarily for personal, family or household purposes" ("The Macan Oil Leak Class"). The class would be certified as to (i) a UCL unlawful prong claim predicated on a violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act’s warranty merchantability provision, and (ii) unjust enrichment, both pertaining to the oil leak defect. Klein, Wu, and Lee would be the class representatives. The second proposed subclass, related to the New Macan Oil Leak Subclass, consists of: "All persons who purchased a new Macan. A Macan is 'new' if, at the time of purchase, it has not been previously purchased by anyone other than Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, their affiliates, or an authorized Porsche dealership" ("The New Macan Oil Leak Subclass"). The New Macan Oil Leak Subclass would be certified as to (i) UCL fraudulent prong claim and a CLRA claim, both predicated on the concealment of the existence of the oil leak defect, and (ii) UCL fraudulent prong claim and a CLRA affirmative misrepresentation claim, both predicated on the misrepresentation as to the horsepower and torque of the Macan on Monroney Label window stickers. Klein and Lee, but not Wu, would be the subclass representatives. Porsche is a German automobile manufacturer specializing in luxury, high-performance sports cars, SUVs and sedans. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TgdNL7 at no extra charge.[CC] PROVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS: Johnson Seeks More Time to File Class Reply ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dewanna Johnson, Sheilla Nathan, Alonzo Tutson, Evora Sykes, Chanell Hobbs, Revisha Silas, Evette Townsend, v. Providence Homeowners Association, FirstService Residential Texas, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00418-ALM (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion for extension of time to reply to the Defendants' joint response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs request that this motion be granted and that Plaintiffs' reply brief date be extended to Nov. 7, 2025. Counsel for the Defendant Providence Homeowners Association and counsel for the Defendant FirstService Residential Texas are unopposed to this motion to extend the time to file a reply brief. Providence governs over 2,250 homes in the town of Providence Village, a suburb about an hour north of Dallas. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q3Z8sA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laura B. Beshara, Esq. Michael M. Daniel, Esq. DANIEL & BESHARA, P.C. 3301 Elm Street Dallas, TX 75226-1637 Telephone: (214) 939-9230 Facsimile: (214) 741-3596 E-mail: laurabeshara@swbell.net daniel.michael@att.net QUAD/GRAPHICS INC: Class Settlement in Shaw Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARITA SHAW, v. QUAD/GRAPHICS, INC., and THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF QUAD/GRAPHICS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01645-PP (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Pamela Pepper entered an order granting the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval and preliminarily approving the settlement agreement pending a fairness hearing. The court approves and orders that Analytics Consulting LLC shall serve as the settlement administrator responsible for carrying out the responsibilities in the settlement agreement. Analytics Consulting LLC shall use the data provided by the defendants and the plan's recordkeeper solely for the purpose of meeting its obligations as settlement administrator. The settling parties have the right to approve a written protocol provided by Analytics Consulting LLC regarding how information shall be maintained, stored and disposed of in order to ensure that all reasonable and necessary precautions are taken to safeguard the privacy and security of such information. The court preliminarily certifies a Rule 23 class as follows: "All persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased Person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Defendants." The court appoints Sharita Shaw as the class representative. The court Appoints the law firm of Walcheske & Luzi, LLC as class counsel for settlement class The court orders the parties to appear for a fairness hearing on Feb. 18, 2026 at 10:00 AM. The agreement defines the class period as "the period from Oct. 30, 2014 through the date the court enters the final approval order." The defendants have agreed to a gross settlement amount of $850,000 payable to the class members who participated in the Quad/Graphics Diversified Plan during the class period. Class counsel will file a fee and expense application forty-two days prior the final hearing, but by the terms of the agreement, the requested amount may not exceed one-third of the settlement ($283,333.33 in fees and $20,000 in costs and expenses). Id. at §6. The class representative will seek a contribution award not to exceed $10,000. Quad/Graphics provides a diverse range of print solutions, media solutions and logistics services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FoEpyX at no extra charge.[CC] QUICK TRIP: Hazel Employment Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- The case DARIUS LERAY HAZEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QUICK TRIP DELIVERY LLC and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVVS2400340, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on October 20, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02775 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of California Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law. Quick Trip Delivery LLC is a package delivery firm in California. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Samuel S. Hyde, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 442-1111 Facsimile: (916) 448-1709 Email: hydes@gtlaw.com - and - Noah Moon Woo, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 655-1300 Facsimile: (415) 707-2010 Email: Noah.Woo@gtlaw.com RACK ROOM SHOES: Class Cert Filing in Smith Due March 13, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEMETRIUS SMITH, et al., v. RACK ROOM SHOES, INC. Case No. 3:24-cv-06709-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. The Plaintiffs are ordered to file the proposed third amended complaint on the docket by Oct. 29, 2025. The Plaintiffs' administrative motion to extend pretrial deadlines is also granted, as modified: -- Motions for class certification/disclosure of expert reports supporting class certification due by March 13, 2026. -- Opposition/Disclosure of expert reports opposing class certification due by April 17, 2026. -- Reply to motion for class certification due by May 8, 2026. -- Motion for class certification hearing set for June 2, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in San Francisco, Courtroom 15, 18th Floor. Rack markets shoes for men, women, and kids. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yuLkRN at no extra charge.[CC] RANCHO MESQUITE: Court Extends Stay of Houghton Suit Until Nov. 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Houghton v. Rancho Mesquite Casino, Inc. (re: Eureka Casino Breach Litigation), Case No. 2:23-cv-00276-CDS-NJK (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge entered an order approving extension of stay: The parties' request to extend the stay through and including Nov. 14, 2025, is approved. A joint status report, or a stipulation of dismissal, is due on Dec. 1, 2025. On April 7, 2023, the Parties filed their Joint Motion to Consolidate all related data breach actions filed against the Defendant in this court. The Court entered an Order granting the joint motion to consolidate on April 10, 2023. On June 16, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint with jury demand On Oct. 10, 2025, the Court ordered a Joint Status Report from the Parties addressing mediation or a stipulation of dismissal. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qgBgkz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP. 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com - and - Gary M. Klinger MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com The Defendant is represented by: David E. Chavez, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 900 Las Vegas, NV 89135 E-mail: chavezd@ballardspahr.com - and - Edward J. McAndrew, Esq. Marcus McCutcheon, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1735 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7501 E-mail: emcandrew@bakerlaw.com mmccutcheon@bakerlaw.com REGENCE BLUESHIELD: Court Certifies Settlement Class in E.S. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as E.S., by and through her parents, R.S. and J.S., and JODI STERNOFF, both on their own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, v. REGENCE BLUESHIELD; and CAMBIA HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., f/k/a THE REGENCE GROUP, Case No. 2:17-cv-01609-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Jones entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for settlement class certification. The Court further appoints class counsel and class representatives as set forth below The following Settlement Class is certified for all claims brought in this case: "All individuals who: (1) were insured at any time during the Settlement Class Period under a Washington health insurance plan that has been, is or will be delivered, issued for delivery, or renewed by Regence BlueShield and/or Cambia Health Solutions Inc. or its affiliates or subsidiaries (collectively, "Regence"), that excluded or limited coverage for Hearing Aids and Associated Services, except for insureds enrolled in large group plans from Jan. 1, 2024 to the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement [the date on which all of the conditions to settlement set forth in Section 2 of the Settlement Agreement have been fully satisfied or waived], and (2) incurred unreimbursed out-of-pocket expenses in obtaining medically necessary Hearing Aids and Associated Services during the Settlement Class Period." The Settlement Class Period is defined as Oct. 30, 2014 through Dec. 31, 2025, inclusive. The Settlement Class will be dissolved in the event that the Settlement Agreement between the parties is not finally approved by this Court. The Court appoints the Plaintiffs Jodi Sternoff, and E.S., by and through her parents, as class representatives, and Eleanor Hamburger, Richard E. Spoonemore, and Daniel S. Gross of Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger PLLC as class counsel. The Court finds that the proposed settlement class can reasonably be expected to be so numerous that joinder is impracticable. Both parties concede that the class is sufficiently numerous to meet class certification standards. The commonality requirement under FRCP 23(a)(2) is also met, as there are common questions of law and fact that affect all members of the class. Regence offers a wide array of Medicare Advantage Plan in Washington. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kFpCWU at no extra charge.[CC] RICOH USA: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to Jan. 26, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKE THE PRINTER, INC., a California corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RICOH USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-08192-JFW-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Walter entered an order approving joint stipulation to further extend deadline for the Plaintiff to file motion for class certification. (1) The Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification be continued from Oct. 20, 2025 to Jan. 26, 2026; (2) All other deadlines shall remain the same. Ricoh electronic products, primarily cameras and office equipment. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T68aA5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Panish, Esq. Jesse Creed, Esq. PANISH | SHEA | RAVIPUDI LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 E-mail: panish@panish.law jcreed@panish.law RUSSELL ROAD: Cosey Class Suit Removed to D. Nev. ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JASLYN COSEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RUSSELL ROAD TIC I LLC; TIC MANAGER LLC; GREP GENERAL PARTNER, LLC; GREYSTAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP; GREYSTAR RS SW, LLC; GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE PARTNERS, LLC; and DOES I through XX, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. A-25-927513-C, was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Clark County, to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on October 23, 2025. The Clerk of the District Court for the District of Nevada assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02069 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges that Defendants own, operate, and/or manage the Glo Las Vegas apartment community and, acting as a common enterprise, engaged in deceptive practices against Plaintiff and other tenants who fell behind on rent by imposing "Attorney or Legal Charges" and other junk fees without a court order and by assessing variable water, trash, and sewer charges that were not specified in tenant leases. Russell Road TIC I LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Thomas E. McGrath, Esq. Lilith V. Xara, Esq. LITCHFIELD CAVO, LLP 3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 100 Las Vegas, NV 89169 Telephone: (702) 949-3100 Facsimile: (702) 916-1776 E-mail: mcgratht@litchfieldcavo.com xara@litchfieldcavo.com RVB INVESTMENT: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Feb. 2, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SKYLAR BURNS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, V. RVB INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00324-HEH (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Henry Hudson entered an order setting class certification deadline as follows: Accordingly, the Court directs the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification on or before Feb. 2, 2026. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record. RVB specializes in providing investment services to clients seeking financial growth and management. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=imrchZ at no extra charge.[CC] S&P GLOBAL: Bid to Seal Docs in CUSIP Suit Partially Granted ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Dinosaur Financial Group LLC, Swiss Life Investment Management Holding AG, and Hildene Capital Management, LLC, each on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. S&P Global, Inc., American Bankers Association, and FactSet Research Systems Inc., Defendants, 22 Civ. 1860 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Plaintiffs' motion to seal and granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to seal. On August 14, 2025, the Court issued an Order in the above captioned case adopting the parties' proposed redaction and sealing protocols related to their class certification briefing. The August 14, 2025 Order allows the parties a certain amount of time after each brief was filed to confer, and then to file with the Court a letter motion to seal, along with proposed redacted copies and highlighted copies. The Court would then rule on whether the proposed redactions were appropriate. Before the Court is the first of those letter motions to seal, which Plaintiffs filed on September 18, 2025, and which relates to Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class and to appoint class counsel, their memorandum of law in support thereof, and a declaration of Ronald J. Aranoff also in support thereof. Attached to Plaintiffs' motion to seal are three appendices. Appendix A lists the 113 redactions on which the parties agree. Appendix B lists 219 additional redactions that only Defendants seek, and it includes Plaintiffs' objections to each of Defendants' additional proposed redactions. Appendix C lists the discovery materials of nonparties designated as Confidential, Highly Confidential, or Attorneys' Eyes Only, which the parties agree should remain sealed. The common law and the First Amendment provide a presumption of public access to judicial documents. In considering a motion to seal, courts in the Second Circuit apply a three-part test. First, courts determine if the document is, in fact, a judicial document to which the presumption of access attaches, meaning that it is relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process. Second, if the document is a judicial document, courts determine the weight of the presumption of access, which depends on its importance to the judicial function and its value to those monitoring the federal courts. Third, courts balance competing considerations against that presumption of access. Competing considerations may include, for example, privacy interests and the protection of competitively sensitive business information. The Court has reviewed the parties' proposed redactions and requests to seal. In short, the Court adopted all of the jointly proffered redactions and sealing requests and most of Defendants' additional redaction requests. Under the first prong of the Lugosch test, the documents qualify as judicial documents. Therefore, a presumption of access attaches. On the second Lugosch prong, the presumption of access is highest for materials filed in connection with dispositive motions. Motions for class certification, like at issue here, are non-dispositive, and thus filings associated with them carry a lesser presumption of access. But that presumption is still substantial. Whether the proposed redactions and sealing requests are appropriate depends on whether competing considerations outweigh this presumption. The Court started by considering the requests on which the parties agree, which requests are the subject of Plaintiffs' motion to seal, and which are listed in Plaintiffs' Appendix A and Appendix C. In each instance, the Court found that the potential harm caused by public disclosure of the material is greater than the weight of the presumption of access. Therefore, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion as to these documents. The agreed-upon redactions in Appendix A pertain to information that is confidential and competitively sensitive, which is a legitimate basis to rebut the public's presumption of access to judicial documents. And the agreed-upon requests to seal in Appendix C all concern nonparty privacy interests, which often overcome the presumption of access. Next, the Court turns to the disputed proposed redactions, which are listed in both Plaintiffs' and Defendants' Appendix B, and which are the subject of Defendants' motion to seal. For the most part, the Court sides with Defendants and holds that the disputed redactions should be adopted. Specifically, the Court grants Defendants' request to redact the text in the following rows of Defendants'. The Court determined that, with regard to these proposed redactions, Defendants' privacy interest outweighed the interest in public access, at least at this stage in the litigation. A substantial portion of Defendants' proposed redactions relates to contractual agreements. Those contractual agreements are only made available to entities who have filled out a Use of Service Statement and met with a CGS employee. The agreements also include confidentiality clauses, indicating their confidential nature. In this way, Defendants are right to distinguish the instant case from a sister court's holding in Saks Inc. v. Attachmate Corp., explaining that the agreements at issue simply spell out rights and responsibilities and are thus not secret documents. Especially at this nondispositive stage in the litigation, Defendants' proposed redactions of materials discussing the confidential agreements are essential to preserve higher values and narrowly tailored to serve Defendants' interests. Most of Defendants' remaining proposed redactions relate to strategic business practices and financial information. The Court holds that Defendants' interest in redacting the material outweighs the presumption of access in most instances. Courts in this District often grant requests to seal or redact information related to strategic business practices and financial information. Here, Defendants have sufficiently shown that revealing such information will result in competitive harm. Of course, there are some proposed redactions for which Defendants were unable to make a particular and specific demonstration of fact showing that redaction is warranted. In many of those instances, Defendants themselves appear to revoke their redaction requests. There are still others where Defendants sustain their redaction request, but the Court finds redaction unnecessary because the information is not confidential or competitively sensitive. But, for the most part, the Court held that Defendants have shown that their privacy interests outweigh the presumption of public access with regard to most of their redaction requests at the class certification stage. The Court granted Plaintiffs' redaction requests, which are those listed in Plaintiffs' Appendix A. Further, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' request to file under seal the discovery materials of non-parties designated as Confidential, Highly Confidential, or Attorneys' Eyes Only, which are listed in Plaintiffs' Appendix C. The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' redaction requests, which are listed in Defendants' Appendix B. The Court denied Defendants' request to redact the text in the other rows of Defendants' Appendix B. Plaintiffs are directed to refile their Memorandum of Law and the Declaration of Ronald J. Aranoff on the public docket, with the above items redacted. Regarding the documents for which the Court granted Plaintiffs' sealing request, Plaintiffs may file a single page marked SEALED on the public docket in place of any sealed exhibit. Finally, the Court extends to the parties its hope that the parties use this Order to narrow any subsequent disputes regarding proposed redactions. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AggUHb from PacerMonitor.com S&P GLOBAL: DFG's Bid to File Discovery Docs Under Seal OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DINOSAUR FINANCIAL GROUP LLC; SWISS LIFE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT HOLDING AG; and HILDENE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, each on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. S&P GLOBAL, INC.; AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION, and FACTSET RESEARCH SYSTEMS INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01860-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' redaction request to file under seal the discovery materials of non-parties designated as Confidential, Highly Confidential, or Attorneys' Eyes Only, which are listed in Plaintiffs’ Appendix C. The Court grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' redaction requests, which are listed in Defendants' Appendix B. Specifically, the Court grants the Defendants' request to redact the text in the following rows of Defendants' Appendix B: 2, 4-13, 15, 17, 19-20, 22-28, 30-32, 34, 36-40, 42, 46-64, 65 (first clause, before the ellipses), 66-76, 79-82, 85-89, 92-94, 99 100, 102-06, 108-09, 111, 115a-i, 116a-g, 117a-c, 117e-h, 118a-g, 119a-d, 120a-i, 121a-c, 121e-k, 122-33, 138-48, 150-53, 155-59, 162-64, 166-73, 175 94, 196-219. The Court denies the Defendants' request to redact the text in the other rows of the Defendants' Appendix B. The Plaintiffs are directed to refile their Memorandum of Law and the Declaration of Ronald J. Aranoff on the public docket, with the above items redacted. Regarding the documents for which the Court has granted the Plaintiffs' sealing request, Plaintiffs may file a single page marked "SEALED" on the public docket in place of any sealed exhibit. Finally, the Court extends to the parties its hope that the parties use this Order to narrow any subsequent disputes regarding proposed redactions. The Clerk of Court is further directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 221. The Court has determined that, with regard to these proposed redactions, the Defendants' privacy interest outweighs the interest in public access, at least at this stage in the litigation. But, for the most part, the Court holds that Defendants have shown that their privacy interests outweigh the presumption of public access with regard to most of their redaction requests at the class certification stage. S&P is a US-based company providing financial information and analytics. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b7wM6Q at no extra charge.[CC] SACRAMENTO, CA: Class cert Bid in Hood Due May 18, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hood, et al., v. City of Sacramento, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00232 (E.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 7, 2023), the Hon. Judge Dena M. Coggins entered an order modifying the Scheduling Order as follows: -- Fact discovery shall be completed by: Feb. 12, 2026 -- Expert disclosures shall be completed by: Mar. 12, 2026 -- Rebuttal expert disclosures shall be April 9, 2026 completed by: -- Expert discovery shall be completed by: April 23, 2026 -- Any motion for class certification May 18, 2026 shall be filed no later than: The nature of suit states Civil Rights – Discrimination. Sacramento is the capital city of the U.S. state of California.[CC] SALEM TOWNSHIP HOSPITAL: Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELINDA LIDDLE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. SALEM TOWNSHIP HOSPITAL, Case No. 3:25-cv-01595-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Dugan entered an order adopting joint report and proposed scheduling and discovery order: The parties should note that they may, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29, modify discovery dates set in the Joint Report by written stipulation, except that they may not modify a date if such modification would impact (1) the date of any court appearance, (2) the deadline for completing the mediation session or the mediation process (if applicable), (3) the deadline for completing all discovery, or (4) the deadline for filing dispositive motions. Salem is a medical group practice located in Salem, IL that specializes in Family Medicine and Physical Therapy. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZeGCUi at no extra charge.[CC] SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Conditional Certification of Class Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MERCEDES CERVANTES, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, and DOES 1-40, inclusive, Case No. 3:25-cv-00275-H-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the, on Dec. 8, 2025, will move the Court as follows: (1) Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and cases interpreting it, that the Court conditionally certify a representative collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); (2) Pursuant to the FLSA and cases interpreting it, that the Court facilitate and authorize notice to prospective collective action members, consisting of: "all current and/or former non-exempt employees of County of San Diego who redeemed compensatory time off earned pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (which County codes as "CTF") during a workweek when he/she also earned other items of compensation County has determined are includable in the regular rate of pay (the "FLSA Rate") at any time from Sept. 5, 2022 through Oct. 20, 2025 (the "FLSA CTO Class Members"); (3) That the Court approve the proposed Notice and Consent Forms; (4) That the Court order Defendant County to produce to Plaintiff's counsel the names, addresses, alternate addresses, email addresses, and all telephone numbers of all Putative FLSA CTO Class Members (the "Putative FLSA CTO Class List"); that such information shall be provided in Microsoft Excel format to Plaintiff’s counsel within 10 days of the date of the Court’s Order granting this motion; (5) That the Court order that the FLSA statute of limitations be tolled from September 5, 2025, through date of the execution of the proposed order of conditional certification; and (6) That the Court order that all Putative FLSA CTO Class Members shall have 90 days from the sending of the Notice to postmark their Consents to Join and mail such Consents to Plaintiff’s Counsel. San Diego is a county in the southwest corner of the US state of California, north to its border with Mexico. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ynwb1D at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jenny D. Baysinger, Esq. Robert J. Wassermann, Esq. MAYALL HURLEY, P.C. 112 S. Church Street Lodi, CA 95240 Telephone: (209) 477-3833 SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Anderson Seeks Attys' Fees & Reimbursement ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEVON ANDERSON and BEVERLY L. SWEENEY on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, and SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, and SAN FRANCISCO EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Case No. 4:20-cv-01149-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Dec. 11, 2025, will move the Court to enter an order: 1. Pursuant to USERRA, 38 U.S.C. 4323(h) and Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to award the Plaintiffs Attorneys' fees and expenses for fees and expenses incurred and to the extent that such amounts are for fees or expenses incurred in connection with the claims of the Class, approve those attorneys' fees and expenses pursuant to Rule 23(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. To the extent that the previously-entered agreement with City remains in effect, approval of the agreement regarding attorneys' fees & expenses through May 28, 2024 pursuant to Rule 23(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 3. Allowing the Plaintiffs and Class Counsel to file another motion for attorneys' fees and expenses incurred after the final approval hearing as provided by the Section XI.B of the class action settlement agreement for any attorneys' fees and expenses incurred after Oct. 19, 2025. The Fee Agreement required the City to pay $977,916.12 into an Escrow Account by no later than 14 days before the deadline for Class Counsel to file any motion for attorneys' fees and expenses. That deadline was October 7, 2025. The City did not make that payment. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bAnRx5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: R. Joseph Barton, Esq. THE BARTON FIRM LLP 1633 Connecticut Ave. Suite 200 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 734-7046 E-mail: jbarton@thebartonfirm.com - and - Michael J. Scimone, Esq. Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 E-mail: mscimone@outtengolden.com jsagafi@outtengolden.com SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Investors Appointed as Lead Plaintiffs ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL DOLGICER, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS, INC., DOUGLAS S. INGRAM, DALLAN MURRAY, and LOUISE RODINO-KLAPAC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05317-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul Engelmayer entered an order appointing (1) plaintiffs Anthony Defilippis, Nicholas Barrass, William Wrede, and Robert Feldstein (the "Investor Group") as lead plaintiff and (2) G&E and Schall as lead counsel. The action shall proceed under the caption In re Sarepta Therapeutics Securities Litigation, 25 Civ. 5317 (PAE). The Court directs the parties to confer and jointly file by Oct. 24, 2025 a proposed schedule for the filing of an amended complaint and briefing schedule for any motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions. Because no prospective lead plaintiff with a larger financial stake has come forward, and the Court does not have access to non-parties' financial records, the Court assumes that Investor Group's financial interest makes it a suitable lead plaintiff. On June 26, 2025, the plaintiff Daniel Dolgicer filed this lawsuit against defendant Sarepta Corporation and its chief executive officer Douglas S. Ingram, chief commercial officer Dallan Murray, and chief scientific officer Louise Rodino-Klapac. The putative class consisted of: "All persons and entities who purchased or acquired shares of Sarepta between June 22, 2023 and June 24, 2025, inclusive (the "class period")." Sarepta is a medical research and drug development company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QePREY at no extra charge.[CC] SAZERAC COMPANY: Hernandez Files Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sazerac Company Inc., et al. The case is styled as Rafael Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sazerac Company Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-24568-PCH (S.D. Fla., Oct. 4, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Sazerac Company, Inc. -- https://www.sazerac.com/ -- is a privately held American alcoholic beverage company headquartered in Metairie in the metropolitan area of New Orleans, Louisiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Chagas Gold, Esq. GOLD LAW, PA 350 Lincoln Rd., 2nd Floor Miami Beach, FL 33139 Phone: (561) 789-4413 Email: chris@chrisgoldlaw.com SENTARA HEALTHCARE: Carter Seeks to Amend Certified Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACEY CARTER and BONNY DAVIS, as the representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the SENTARA 403(B) SAVINGS PLAN, v. SENTARA HEALTHCARE FIDUCIARY COMMITTEE and SENTARA HEALTH, Case No. 2:25-cv-00016-JKW-LRL (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order amending the certified class to be defined as follows: "All Sentara 403(b) Savings Plan participants with a balance in the Principal Guaranteed Interest Balance Contract (GIBC) at any time since Jan. 8, 2019, along with their beneficiaries and alternate payees of record, excluding members of the Sentara Healthcare Fiduciary Committee and any directors and officers of Sentara Health with fiduciary responsibility for the Plan's investments." The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to clarify that the certified class is mandatory and that the notice sent to class members should indicate that class members cannot opt-out of the class. In its Order, the court found that "the plaintiffs satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3)." The Plaintiffs request clarification as to whether the Court intended the certified class to permit class members to opt-out and whether the notice should so state. Class Counsel contends that an opt-out class on behalf of an ERISA plan is rare. Sentara is a not-for-profit integrated healthcare system serving Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uVc6rm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas D. Thompson, Esq. CASEY JONES LAW FIRM 323 N. Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 305-8349 Facsimile: (612) 677-3050 E-mail: nthompson@caseyjones.law - and - Jennifer K. Lee, Esq. Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. Matthew Jacobs, Esq. ENGSTROM LEE LLC 323 N. Washington Avenue, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 305-8349 Facsimile: (612) 677-3050 E-mail: jlee@engstromlee.com cengstrom@engstromlee.com - and - James H. White IV, Esq. THE JAMES WHITE FIRM LLC 2100 Morris Avenue Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 317-2551 E-mail: james@whitefirmllc.com SENTARA HEALTHCARE: Court Modifies Oct. 2 Class Cert Order ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACEY CARTER, et al., v. SENTARA HEALTHCARE FIDUCIARY COMMITTEE, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00016-JKW-LRL (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Walker entered an order granting the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for correction and clarification of the Court's order on class certification. The Court's Oct. 2, 2025, order is modified as follows: The class is defined as: "All Sentara 403(b) Savings Plan participants with a balance in the Principal Guaranteed Interest Balance Contract (GIBC) at any time since Jan. 8, 2019, along with their beneficiaries and alternate payees of record, excluding members of the Sentara Healthcare Fiduciary Committee and any directors and officers of Sentara Health with fiduciary responsibility for the Plan's investments." The class is certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1). Therefore, the parties' proposed notice shall indicate that members cannot opt out of the class. Sentara is a not-for-profit healthcare organization serving Virginia, northeastern North Carolina and Florida. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1Qe3nl at no extra charge.[CC] SERGIO ALBARRAN: Pinchi Seeks Provisional Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRESCIA GARRO PINCHI, JUANY GALO SANTOS, and JOSE TELETOR SENTE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. SERGIO ALBARRAN, Field Office Director of the San Francisco Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security; TODD LYONS, Acting Director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, acting in their official capacities; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Case No. 5:25-cv-05632-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Nov. 20, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., will move the Court for an Order provisionally certifying the following class and subclass: Class: "All noncitizens in the jurisdiction of the San Francisco ICE Field Office who (1) entered or will enter the United States without inspection; (2) have been or will be charged with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. section 1182 and have been or will be released from DHS custody; and who (3) are in removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. section 1229a, including any section 1229a proceedings that have been dismissed where the dismissal is not administratively final; and (4) are not subject to detention under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(c). Bond/Release on Recognizance Subclass ("Bond/RoR Subclass"): "All members of the Class whose release from DHS custody was or will be on bond, conditional parole, or their own recognizance under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a) and/or 8 C.F.R. section 236.1(c)(8)." The Plaintiffs request provisional certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2) to seek an interim stay of agency action under APA Section 705. Additionally, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to provisionally appoint the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, and Centro Legal de la Raza as class counsel under Rule 23(g). The action arises from Defendants' sweeping new policy (the "Re-Detention Policy") that authorizes re-arrest and re-detention of noncitizens without any basis in—or individualized assessment of—their flight risk or danger to the community. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0EH9Jz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Erin E. Meyer, Esq. Julia L. Allen, Esq. Claire C. Bonelli, Esq. Ellen Watlington, Esq. Jacquie P. Andreano, Esq. Kayla Crowell, Esq. KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 E-mail: emeyer@keker.com jallen@keker.com cbonelli@keker.com ewatlington@keker.com jandreano@keker.com kcrowell@keker.com - and - Bree Bernwanger, Esq. Michelle (Minju) Y. Cho, Esq. Neil K. Sawhney, Esq. Lauren M. Davis, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 621-2493 E-mail: bbernwanger@aclunc.org mcho@aclunc.org nsawhney@aclunc.org ldavis@aclunc.org - and - Abby Sullivan Engen, Esq. Jesse Newmark, Esq. Nikolas De Bremaeker, Esq. CENTRO LEGAL DE LA RAZA 3400 E. 12th Street Oakland, CA 94601 Telephone: (510) 437-1863 E-mail: asullivanengen@centrolegal.org jessenewmark@centrolegal.org ndebremaeker@centrolegal.org - and - Judy Rabinovitz, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2660 E-mail: jrabinovitz@aclu.org SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Seeks to Certify Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE SOLAREDGE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-09748-GHW-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court, before the Honorable Gregory H. Woods, for an Order: (1) certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules”) 23(a) and 23(b)(3) and certifying the Class defined in the accompanying Memorandum of Law; and (2) appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3); and (3) appointing Pomerantz LLP as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). SolarEdge is a US company that developed a DC optimized inverter system. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IF8nkb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian Calandra, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: bcalandra@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com STARK COUNTY AMBULANCE: Settlement in Buckley Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jacob Buckley, Ashley Neiggermann, and Jeff Martin, on behalf of themselves and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, v. Stark County Ambulance Services, Inc., Team Triage, Inc., and James Roesner, Case No. 1:25-cv-01141-JEH-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a preliminary approval order as follows: 1. The Court preliminarily approves the settlement as being fair, reasonable and adequate, and in the best interest of the Plaintiffs and those persons that are identified on Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement (the "Class Members"). 2. The Court certifies on a preliminary basis the following Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") and 26 U.S.C.A. section7434 class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for settlement purposes only. The Rule 23 Class is defined as: "the Named Plaintiffs and persons employed as hourly non- exempt employees by the Defendants between April 9, 2022 and April 9, 2025, who are identified in the payroll data produced by the Defendants to the Plaintiff's Counsel and who are identified on Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement." The decision to grant or deny final IMWL Class Certification to occur after the fairness hearing. 3. The Court conditionally certifies the following Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective for settlement purposes pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): "the Named Plaintiff and persons employed as hourly non- exempt employees by the Defendants between April 9, 2022 and April 9, 2025, who are identified in the payroll data produced by the Defendant to the Plaintiff's Counsel and who are identified on Exhibit A Settlement Agreement, and who timely submit requests FLSA opt-in forms pursuant to the Notice." The FLSA Collective Members already include those individuals who already submitted consents to join, including, Jacob Buckley, Ashley Neiggemann, Jeff Martin, Alisa Ebinger, Holly Peed, James Hutton, Sarah Miller, Tracey Melvin, Justin Brown, Michael McAlvey, Ryan Zavada, and Sara Bolelli 4. A Fairness Hearing shall be held before this Court at 10:00 a.m. on Jan. 4, 2026. 5. Workplace Law Partners, P.C. is appointed as Class Counsel for the Class and Collective Action Members for settlement purposes. 6. Jacob Buckley, Ashley Neiggermann, andJeff Martin are appointed as the representative Plaintiff in this class and collective action for settlement purposes. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2sfWHO at no extra charge.[CC] STARTEK USA: Harris Seeks Final Approval of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAKAYLA HARRIS, COLLEEN LEWIN, TIFFANY WILLIAMS, DANIELLE COLWILL MAUCH, KRISTOPHER FLAGG, MATTHEW BERG, ALICIA JENKINS, ANISSA BATES, BRITTANY YOUNG, KIMBERLY PITNEY, DAWN BADGER, PAULA KEMP, RHONDA DAVIS, TIFFANY PATTERSON, BRITTNEY CHRISTIAN, PHANTHASIA KING, TAURI SCHULER-BONNER, AMELIA KURTZ, MATTHEW PAVEY, RACHEL DUBOSE, LEXUS RANSOM, CLAUDINE MIUDO, RICHARD DEAN, STEPHANIE ST. GEORGE and SASHA RANSEY individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. STARTEK USA, INC., a corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-00437-RM-TPO (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying a class for settlement purposes under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 (e.g., "Rule 23") and certifying a FLSA collective for settlement purposes under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) (as defined in the Parties' Joint Stipulation of Class Action Settlement (hereinafter "Settlement Agreement")); (2) finally approving the Parties' Settlement Agreement; (3) appointing Named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives for the Class/Collective and Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel; and (4) dismissing the action with prejudice. StarTek provides computer software. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NstbnL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Alana Karbal, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com akarbal@sommerspc.com STATE FARM: Class Cert Filing in Hardy Extended to Apr. 15, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER HARDY & JERMINE SANTIAGO, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:25-cv-00072-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting the joint stipulated motion to extend class certification deadlines: In accordance with LCR 16(b)(6), the Plaintiffs Tyler Hardy and Jermine Santiago and Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company jointly move to extend class certification deadlines in this matter as previously set by the Court by 90 days. The Parties agree that good cause exists for this continuance and modification of the scheduling order. The Parties propose the following amended schedule: Event Date Class certification discovery cut-off: Mar. 3, 2026 Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file Apr. 15, 2026 motion to certify class: Opposition to motion to certify class: July 14, 2026 Reply in support of motion to certify Sept. 24, 2026 class: Hearing on motion to certify class: To be set by the Court after briefing completed An additional 90 days will allow the Parties to complete discovery and briefing in a thorough and efficient manner. The Parties submit that denial of an extension would cause significant hardship, as they will not have sufficient time to comply with the Scheduling Order deadlines. State is a property, casualty and auto insurance provider. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AsWMcT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen M. Hanson, Esq. STEPHEN M. HANSEN, P.S. 3800 Bridgeport Way, Ste. A, PMB 5 University Place, WA 98466 Telephone: (253) 302-5955 E-mail: Steve@stephenmhansenlaw.com - and – Scott P. Nealey, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT P. NEALEY 201 Spear Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 231-5311 E-mail: snealey@nealeylaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Steve Jensen, Esq. Benjamin Roesch, Esq. JENSEN MORSE BAKER PLLC 520 Pike Street, Suite 2375 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-1644 E-mail: steve.jensen@jmblawyers.com benjamin.roesch@jmblawyers.com - and – David Carpenter, Esq. Tiffany Powers, Esq. Melissa Quintana, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 1201 W. Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-7000 E-mail: David.Carpenter@alston.com Tiffany.Powers@alston.com Melissa.Quintana@alston.com STEVEN SANDERS: Class Cert Reply Brief Filing Extended to Nov. 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LATORIA GEORGE and JOHNNIE RUSHING, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. STEVEN E. SANDERS, in his official capacity as East Baton Rouge Parish Ward 3 District 2 Justice of the Peace, Case No. 3:25-cv-00168-JWD-EWD (M.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time from Oct. 28, 2025, to Nov. 7, 2025, to file a reply brief in support of her renewed motion for class certification. Ms. Rushing seeks a 10-day extension of time to file a reply brief in support of her renewed motion for class certification because of competing deadlines in other cases and pre-planned vacation. Ms. Rushing does not seek an extension of time to respond to the Defendant's motion to dismiss. On Sept. 15, 2025, Ms. Rushing filed her renewed motion for class certification. On Oct. 14, 2025, the Defendant Sanders filed a combined motion to dismiss and brief in opposition to the Plaintiff Rushing's class certification motion. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rSUdbC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Micah West, Esq. Ellen Degnan, Esq. Miriam Gutman, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Ave. Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 956-8334 E-mail: micah.west@splcenter.org ellen.degnan@splcenter.org miriam.gutman@splcenter.org - and - William Patrick Quigley, Esq. LOYOLA NEW ORLEANS COLLEGE OF LAW 7214 St. Charles Ave. New Orleans, LA 70118 Telephone: (504) 710-3074 E-mail: quigley77@gmail.com - and - Hannah Adams, Esq. NATIONAL HOUSING LAW PROJECT 90 New Montgomery St. Suite 1015 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (504) 321-3302 E-mail: hadams@nhlp.org SUMMIT NATIONAL: Class Settlement in Purnell Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN PURNELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUMMIT NATIONAL BANK, Case No. 2:24-cv-00190-KHR (D. Wyo.), the Hon. Judge Rankin entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement: 1. The Court grants preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and all of the terms and conditions contained therein. 2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court preliminarily certifies, for settlement purposes only, the Class defined in the Settlement Agreement as follows: "All individuals residing in the United States who were sent a notice by Summit informing them of the Data Incident Summit discovered in May 2024." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the judges presiding over this Action, and members of their direct families; (2) the Defendant, their subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or their parents have a controlling interest, and their current or former officers and directors; and (3) Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Request for Exclusion prior to the Opt-Out Deadline. 3. The Court appoints Brian Purnell as the Class Representative for the Class. 4. The Court finds the following counsel are experienced and adequate counsel and appoints them as Class Counsel for the Settlement: Terence R. Coates and Jonathan T. Deters of Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC, and Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC. 5. The Court will hold a final approval hearing on April 21, 2026 at 9:00 AM. The Plaintiff Purnell, individually and on behalf of the proposed Class, and Defendant have entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release, dated Sept. 30, 2025, consisting primarily of a $400,000 non-reversionary settlement fund that, if approved, would settle the above-captioned litigation Summit is a provider of banking and lending services intended to serve commercial, agriculture, real estate, mortgages, and construction sectors. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eGHKLB at no extra charge.[CC] SUN-MAID GROWERS: Filing for Class Certification Due Feb. 20, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGARET MCGARITY, et al., v. SUN-MAID GROWERS OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. 3:24-cv-00714-BAS-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Butcher entered an scheduling order regulating discovery and class certification motion filing deadline: 1. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings must be filed on or before Dec. 8, 2025. 2. A telephonic Status Conference to discuss the status of the case and discovery will be held before Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher on Jan. 23, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. The Court will send counsel of record audio-only Zoom connection instructions prior to the Status Conference. 3. Merit and class discovery are not bifurcated; however, all discovery for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification must be completed on or before Jan. 23, 2026. 4. A motion for class certification must be filed no later than Feb. 20, 2026. 5. Counsel must contact Judge Butcher's chambers at 619-446-3704 regarding setting all remaining case management dates within three (3) days of the Court's ruling on the motion for class certification. Sun-Maid is an American farmer-owned cooperative of raisin growers. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eLmB7i at no extra charge.[CC] SUNO INC: Woulard Alleges Illegal Use of Copyrighted Recordings --------------------------------------------------------------- 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, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SUNO, INC. and UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-12684 (N.D. Ill., October 16, 2025) challenges Suno's practice of systematically copying and storing works by independent artists, including Plaintiffs', to fuel a commercial, mass-market music generation engine. According to the complaint, Suno built its rapidly expanding commercial empire by disregarding the intellectual property rights of the artists it claims to support. Suno created and sells a product that directly competes in markets where independent artists make their living, such as sync licensing, library and production music, streaming, commissions, and lyric licensing. Defendant Suno has admitted to training its models on copyrighted material while claiming the ability to produce "radio-quality" songs that are indistinguishable from human performances. It did not seek permission or pay for the works it copied and retained. Suno hints at "fair use," but copying and storing entire works to build a competing, profit-making music factory is not fair use, asserts the complaint. Additionally, Suno's misconduct extends beyond copyright issues as it collected, stored, and exploited biometric identifiers and voiceprints derived from human performances without adhering to the legal safeguards required by the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, thereby violating the Act, notes the complaint. Suno also misused artists' voices and identities for commercial gain without permission, violating the Illinois Right of Publicity Act. Suno further violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by bypassing access controls to obtain works and by removing, altering, or providing false copyright-management information, the complaint states. Suno, Inc. is a technology company that operates an AI music generator platform, Suno AI, allowing users to create songs from text prompts.[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 E-mail: ross@loevy.com jon@loevy.com mike@loevy.com matt@loevy.com aaron@loevy.com SUNSTONE HOTEL: Faces Baysic Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. -------------------------------------------------------------- NOEL BAYSIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNSTONE HOTEL PROPERTIES, INC., AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY, LLC, ADVENT INTERNATIONAL, L.P., and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV28716 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., September 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide compliant meal periods, failure to provide compliant rest periods, failure to reimburse necessary business expenses, failure to retain gratuities, failure to timely pay wages during employment, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a banquet captain from approximately October 1, 2022 through the present. Sunstone Hotel Properties, Inc. is a hospitality and lodging real estate investment company, doing business in California. Aimbridge Hospitality, LLC is a hospitality management company, doing business in California. Advent International, LP is a global equity investor, doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. Brandon J. Sweeney, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com bsweeney@bradleygrombacher.com SYMMETRY FINANCIAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Dec. 3 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bennett v. Symmetry Financial Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00067 (W.D.N.C., Filed March 6, 2025), the Hon. Judge Martin Reidinger entered an order as follows: -- The Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Extension of Time to File Motion for Class Certification is granted in part. -- The deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification is extended through and including Dec. 3, 2025. -- All other provisions of the Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan remain in effect.[CC] The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) involving restrictions of use of telephone equipment. Symmetry is an insurance marketing organization. SYNEOS HEALTH: Class Settlement in Scurlock Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REGINALD SCURLOCK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SYNEOS HEALTH US, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-09444-FMO-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order re: final approval of class action settlement: 1. The Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action settlement and certification of settlement class is granted. 2. The Plaintiff's motion for award of (1) attorneys' fees and costs to class counsel, and (2) enhancement to the Plaintiff is granted. 3. The court grants final approval of the parties' settlement agreement. 4. The settlement class is certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c) as defined in ¶ 1.5 of the settlement agreement and this Order. 5. The Plaintiff Reginald Scurlock shall be paid a service payment of $5,000.00 in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement and this Order. 6. Class counsel shall be paid $171,875.00 in attorney's fees, and $19,216.33 in costs in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Order. 7. Phoenix Settlement Administrators shall be paid its fees and expenses in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Order. 8. The LWDA shall be paid $37,500.00 pursuant to the settlement agreement. Syneos provides biopharmaceutical solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hUK0qQ at no extra charge.[CC] TAKATA AIRBAG: Class Cert Hearing Date Set in Prod. Liability Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 1:15-md-02599-FAM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Moreno entered an order setting hearing on Mercedez-Benz USA Llc's motion to alter or amend order on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Counsel shall be prepared to address whether reliance is an individual issue under North Carolina law, whether North Carolina's duty to disclose exists only in arm's length negotiations and is not substantially similar to that of other states, and how a ruling in favor of Mercedes Benz may impact classes wherein Plaintiff Bridges has been designated the class representative. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U0w24Z at no extra charge.[CC] TALLAHASSEE MEMORIAL: Sheward Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Paula Sheward, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare, Inc., Cerner Corporation doing business as: Oracle Health, Case No. 4:25-cv-00364 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Oct. 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00832-BP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Tallahassee Memorial HealthCare (TMH) -- https://www.tmh.org/ -- is a private, not-for-profit community healthcare system founded in 1948.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Fax: (954) 525-4300 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com TARGET CORP: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Boyd Due April 13, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Boyd et al v. Target Corp., Case No. 0:23-cv-02668 (D. Minn., Filed Aug. 29, 2023), the Hon. Judge Katherine M. Menendez entered an order granting the Parties' Joint Motion to Extend Pretrial Deadlines. -- Substantial completion of document Nov. 18, 2025 Production: -- Service of deposition notices or Dec. 12, 2025 subpoenas under 30(b)(6): -- Completion of mental or physical Jan. 15, 2026 Examinations: -- Completion of fact discovery: March 12, 2026 -- Non-dispositive motions related March 12, 2026 to fact discovery: -- Motions for class certification: April 13, 2026 The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Target is an American retail corporation.[CC] TAYLOR FARMS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Vila Die April 15, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN VILA, et al., v. TAYLOR FARMS RETAIL, INC., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-06255-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hixson entered a case management order as follows: Deadline to seek leave to amend pleadings: Dec. 1, 2025 Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file motion Apr. 15, 2026 for class certification and any expert report(s) in support thereof: Deadline for the Defendants to oppose motion May 15, 2026 for class certification and produce any expert report(s) in support of its opposition: Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file reply in June 1, 2026 support of motion for class certification: Hearing on Class Certification Motion June 18, 2026 Taylor is an American-based producer of fresh-cut fruits and vegetables. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7jfoTX at no extra charge.[CC] TEA DATING ADVICE: Karam Suit Transferred to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Gabrielle Karam, Samantha Stevens, Meredith Karam, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Tea Dating Advice, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-01790 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-09071-AGT to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Tea, officially Tea Dating Advice -- https://www.teaforwomen.com/ -- is a dating surveillance mobile phone application that allows women to post personal data about men they are interested in or are currently dating.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gladstone N. Jones, III, Esq. Kevin Earl Huddell, Esq. Lynn E. Swanson, Esq. Rosa E. Acheson, Esq. Thomas Dixon, Esq. JONES, SWANSON, HUDDELL & GARRISON, LLC (NEW ORLEANS) Pan American Life Center 601 Poydras St., Suite 2655 New Orleans, LA 70130-6004 Phone: (504) 523-2500 Email: gjones@jonesswanson.com khuddell@jonesswanson.com lswanson@jonesswanson.com racheson@jonesswanson.com tdixon@jonesswanson.com The Defendant is represented by: James M. Garner, Esq. Kaylyn Blosser Handy, Esq. Stuart Daniel Kottle, Esq. SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN & HILBERT, LLC 909 Poydras Street, Ste 28th Floor New Orleans, LA 70112 Phone: (504) 299-2100 Email: jgarner@shergarner.com khandy@shergarner.com skottle@shergarner.com TEKNIPLEX INC: Miller Files Fraud Suit in E.D. Pa. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tekniplex, Inc. The case is captioned as JAMES MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TEKNIPLEX, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-05623-CFK (E.D. Pa., September 30, 2025). The suit is brought against the Defendant for fraud claims. TekniPlex, Inc. is a packaging and material solutions company based in Wayne, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq. Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. SHUB JOHNS & HOLBROOK LLP Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 Email: sholbrook@shublawyers.com bjohns@shublawyers.com - and - Andrew Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com TELIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Investigates Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Telix Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (NASDAQ: TLX) resulting from allegations that Telix may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Telix 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=43778 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 July 22, 2025, Telix disclosed receipt of a subpoena from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which was "seeking various documents and information primarily relating to the Company's disclosures regarding the development of the Company's prostate cancer therapeutic candidates." On this news, Telix's American Depositary Share ("ADS") price fell 10.44% on July 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. Contact Information: 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] TENNESSEE GAS: Bid for Leave of Court to File Reply Brief OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADISH JOHNSON CO., LIMITED individually and as representative of all those similarly situated, v. TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 2:23-cv-07363-CJB-EJD (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Barbier entered an order granting an unopposed Motion for Leave of Court to File Reply Brief in Excess of Ten (10) Pages. The Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Reply to the Defendants' Opposition to Motion for Class Certification of up to fifteen pages. Tennessee provides gas transportation and storage services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uuLA5v at no extra charge.[CC] TEXAS: United States Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. STATE OF TEXAS and GREG ABBOTT, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, Case No. 3:21-cv-00173-KC (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- certifying the proposed Class under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2), -- appointing Plaintiff Harbury as Class Representative, and -- appointing the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas as Class Counsel. The Court should permanently enjoin GA-37 statewide. A class action is warranted in this challenge to Executive Order GA-37, titled "Relating to the transportation of migrants during the COVID-19 disaster." But the pandemic has long since ended. Yet Texas continues to defend GA-37, despite the expiration of its stated purpose, and despite its clear conflict with federal law. As this Court concluded, "GA 37 is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause." Certifying a class will ensure that GA-37 cannot be used to impound and reroute untold numbers of Texas drivers in violation of the Constitution and federal law. As Plaintiffs explained in their briefing on the scope of the permanent injunction, a statewide injunction is necessary to provide them complete relief. Granting class certification would provide a second basis to enjoin GA-37 statewide, because even Defendant admits that a statewide class would be entitled to a statewide injunction. Thus, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2), Plaintiff Jennifer Harbury seeks to certify the following class: "All persons in Texas who are or will be providing ground transportation to a group of migrants who have been detained by Customs and Border Protection for crossing the border illegally." This is an easy case for class certification, because every class member has identical claims that GA-37 is preempted on its face, and so each is entitled to the same injunction against its enforcement. Class certification and corresponding statewide relief would provide a clear and efficient resolution to the scope of relief, conserving judicial resources and ensuring uniform protection for all affected class members. On Aug. 4, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that GA-37 was preempted by federal law and violated the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity, in contravention of the Supremacy Clause. The Plaintiffs are shelters, non-profit organizations (and their members), and individuals who transport migrants throughout Texas whom CBP has released to live in the United States. Texas borders Louisiana to the east, Arkansas to the northeast, Oklahoma to the north, and New Mexico to the west. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dlVZUc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Donatti, Esq. Adriana Piñon, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF TEXAS, INC. 5225 Katy Freeway, Suite 350 Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 942-8146 Facsimile: (713) 942-8966 E-mail: ddonatti@aclutx.org apinon@aclutx.org - and - Spencer Amdur, Esq. Oscar Sarabia Roman, Esq. Cody Wofsy, Esq. Omar Jadwat, Esq. Noor Zafar, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 425 California Street, 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 343-0770 E-mail: samdur@aclu.org osarabia@aclu.org cwofsy@aclu.org ojadwat@aclu.org nzafar@aclu.org THREADING SALON: Norris Sues Over Discriminative Property --------------------------------------------------------- Namel Norris, and other similar situated v. THREADING SALON & SPA INC., a New York corporation, d/b/a PERFECT BROWS NYC, and THE MANHATTAN ASSOCIATES REALTY, LLC, a New York limited liability company, Case No. 1:25-cv-08766 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 22, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs (including, but not limited to, court costs and expert fees) pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), and the new York State human rights law ("NYSHRL") as a result of the Defendants' have discriminative Property. The Defendants have discriminated, and continue to discriminate, against the Plaintiff, and others who are similarly situated, by denying full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations at Defendants' Property, and by failing to remove architectural barriers, where such removal is readily achievable. The Plaintiff has been unable to, and continues to be unable to, enjoy full and equal safe access to, and the benefits of, all the accommodations and services offered at Defendants' Property, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic and uses a wheelchair for mobility. THREADING SALON & SPA INC., is the lessee and/or operator of the real property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: B. Bradley Weitz, Esq. Robert J. Mirel, Esq. THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A. Bank of America Building 18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214 Aventura, Florida 33160 phone: (305) 949-7777 Facsimile: (305) 704-3877 Email: bbw@weitzfirm.com rjm@weitzfirm.com TIDEWATER PROPERTY: Floyd Seeks Conditional Cert. of Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIRA FLOYD, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. TIDEWATER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02003-MJM (D. Md.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion for conditional certification of collective action and notice to potential Plaintiffs. The Plaintiff seeks to conditionally certify a collective action in which all current or former Property Managers who worked for Defendant at any time within three years of the date of entry of this Court’s Order granting this Motion receive notice of this action and their right to participate and be allowed ninety (90) days in which to opt in. The Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an Order: A. Compelling Defendant to produce to Plaintiff's counsel, within 14 days, a list of the full names, last known work and personal telephone numbers and email addresses, and last known home address of each current or former Property Manager who worked for Defendant at any time within three years of the date of entry of this Court’s Order granting this Motion; and B. Approving the attached “Notice” and consent form for use in notifying the group of potential plaintiffs; and C. Allowing Plaintiff to mail, email, and text the notice form with the attached consent form; and D. Establishing a ninety (90) day opt-in period, measured from the date notice is mailed; and E. Approving the attached “Reminder Notice” form and consent form to be sent by mail, email, and text twenty-one (21) days before the end of the opt-in period; and F. Authorizing execution of the consent forms through electronic signature; and G. Granting all other and further relief that this Court deems appropriate. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Property Manager. Although Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation. The Defendant subjected its other Property Managers to the exact same policy of failing to pay overtime compensation regardless of any overtime hours worked, in violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Tidewater is a real estate management company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GWkbcC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip B. Zipin, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (240) 839-9142 E-mail: pzipin@zagfirm.com TONYA ANDREWS: Bid to Dismiss Andrews Suit Tossed w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Y.S.G., v. TONYA ANDREWS, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01884-SCR (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Riordan entered an order that: 1. The Respondents' motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice. 2. The Petitioner's motion to enforce the preliminary injunction order is granted. 3. Respondents shall immediately release petitioner under the same conditions that he was previously released from immigration custody. 4. Before he may be redetained, petitioner shall be afforded the process required by the court's preliminary injunction order in the form of notice and a hearing before an immigration judge. At any such hearing, respondents have the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that petitioner poses a current danger to the community or a risk of flight. 5. Absent a further procedural order of the court, the parties shall file a joint status report within 30 days indicating whether respondents will seek to redetain petitioner based on current circumstances and whether petitioner still believes that discovery is warranted. The parties shall also submit a proposed timeline for any final merits briefing on the petition.13 The court may convene a status conference after the filing of the joint status report. Petitioner was born in 1992 in Mexico and came to the United States when he was approximately four years old. Since that time, he resided in Patterson, California, where he graduated from high school before attending community college in Hayward, Livermore, and Modesto. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xPVlnQ at no extra charge.[CC] TOWN SPORTS: Breeze Sues Over Discriminative Property ----------------------------------------------------- Byron Breeze, Jr., and other similar situated v. TOWN SPORTS INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a NEW YORK SPORTS CLUBS-W 73RD ST, and PARK ROYAL OWNERS, INC., a New York corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-08762 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 22, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs (including, but not limited to, court costs and expert fees) pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), and the new York State human rights law ("NYSHRL") as a result of the Defendants' have discriminative Property. The Defendants have discriminated, and continue to discriminate, against the Plaintiff, and others who are similarly situated, by denying full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations at Defendants' Property, and by failing to remove architectural barriers, where such removal is readily achievable. The Plaintiff has been unable to, and continues to be unable to, enjoy full and equal safe access to, and the benefits of, all the accommodations and services offered at Defendants' Property, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a double amputee and uses a wheelchair for mobility. SPORTS INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC., is the lessee and/or operator of the real property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: B. Bradley Weitz, Esq. Robert J. Mirel, Esq. THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A. Bank of America Building 18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214 Aventura, Florida 33160 phone: (305) 949-7777 Facsimile: (305) 704-3877 Email: bbw@weitzfirm.com rjm@weitzfirm.com TRANS UNION: Faces Laccinole Class Suit Over Consumer Reports ------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER LACCINOLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-09041-VC (N.D. Cal., Oct. 21, 2025) is a class action for statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, brought pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The information contained in the Plaintiff's credit files and consumer reports is private. As a result of the Defendant's wrongful provision of Plaintiff’s consumer report, and those of the Permissible Purpose Class, to "Varro Leon," Plaintiff, and the Permissible Purpose Class, have suffered an invasion of privacy, says the suit. The Defendant did not have a reasonable basis to believe that "Varro Leon" had a permissible purpose under the FCRA for obtaining the consumer reports, the Plaintiff contends. Trans Union is a national consumer reporting agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 23586 Calabasas Rd., Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com TRANSDEV SERVICES: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Feb. 20, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA GANTHER, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees, and on behalf of the general public; v. TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC., a Maryland Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 4:22-cv-04230-KAW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kandis Westmore entered an order modifying case management order: 1. The Scheduling Order is modified as follows: a. The deadline to file a motion for class certification is Feb. 20, 2026; b. The deadline to file an opposition to the motion for class certification is Mar. 20, 2026; c. The deadline to file a reply to the opposition to the motion for class certification is Apr. 17, 2026; d. The motion for class certification will be heard on Jun. 4, 2026 at 1:30 P.M. Transdev Services provides passenger transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WUhPaR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. Nidah Farishta, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION 5743 Corsa Ave, Suite 123 Westlake Village, CA 91362 Telephone: (818) 293-5623 Facsimile (888) 850-1310 E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com Nidah@OLFLA.com The Defendants are represented by: Kate Juvinall, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 1999 Harrison St., Suite 700 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 768-0650 Facsimile: (510) 768-0651 E-mail: Kate.Juvinall@huschblackwell.com TRINITY HEALTH: Faces Settle Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- EMMA SETTLE, individually and for others similarly situated v. TRINITY HEALTH SYSTEM, Case No. 2:25-cv-01231-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, October 22, 2025) is a class and collective action to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Trinity Health System under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Settle and the other patient care employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a week but Trinity does not pay her and other patient care employees at least one and a half times their regular rates of pay -- based on all remuneration -- for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Instead, Trinity automatically deducts 30 minutes a day from these employees' hours for so called "meal periods." Additionally, Trinity pays Plaintiff Settle and other similarly situated non-discretionary bonuses, including sign on bonuses, that it excludes from these employee's regular raters of pay for overtime purposes in violation of the laws, says the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a registered nurse from approximately September 2024 until December 2024. Trinity Health System is a local health system in Steubenville, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com UNION HOME: Fink Files Personal Injury Suit in N.D. Ohio -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Union Home Mortgage Corporation. The case is captioned as MASON FINK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNION HOME MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-02082-JPC (N.D. Ohio, September 30, 2025). The Plaintiff brings personal injury claims against the Defendant. Union Home Mortgage Corporation is an American mortgage loan company based in Strongsville, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jared W. Connors, Esq. MEYER WILSON WERNING 305 West Nationwide Blvd. Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 224-6000 Facsimile: (614) 224-6066 Email: jconnors@meyerwilson.com UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Seeks Class Cert Order Partial Reconsideration ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LD, DB, BW, RH, and CJ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, a California Corporation, UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut Corporation, and MULTIPLAN, INC., a New York Corporation, Case No. 4:20-cv-02254-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file motion for partial reconsideration of class certification order: In granting class certification, the Court held that payment on a balance bill is required for injury and the Court's Order appeared to limit the class to "members who paid on balance bills for relevant charges." However, in granting certification, the Court did not expressly define the class as required by Rule 23(c)(1)(B), and Plaintiffs are ignoring this Court’s reasoning and arguing that the Court simply granted their motion -- i.e., that the Court certified a class that includes members who merely "received balance bills from their provider." Reconsideration is warranted under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3) so that the parties have a clear class definition that tracks the reasoning in the Court’s order. To avoid unnecessary ambiguities and disputes about who is in the class, the Defendants request that the Court reconsider and clarify its Order to expressly limit the class to members who paid balance bills on relevant services, consistent with the findings in its Order. On July 14, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their third motion for certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class. The Plaintiffs' motion defined their proposed class as: "Any member of a health benefit plan administered or issued by United and governed by ERISA, where the member's plan utilized United's "Reasonable and Customary" program for out-of network benefits, and whose claim(s) for intensive outpatient services were billed with HCPCS H0015 and/or revenue code 0909 as an all-inclusive per diem, priced by MultiPlan's Viant methodology, and never adjusted, and who received balance bills from their provider, during the class period from Jan. 1, 2015, to the present." Specifically, the Court should adopt the following class definition, which modifies Plaintiffs' proposed alternative class definition to align with the Court's Order (proposed edits are noted in bold): "Any member of a health benefit plan administered or issued by United and governed by ERISA, where the member's plan utilized United's "Reasonable and Customary" program for out-of network benefits, and whose claim(s) for intensive outpatient services were billed with HCPCS H0015 and/or revenue code 0906 as an all-inclusive per diem, priced by MultiPlan's Viant methodology, and never adjusted, and who paid balance bills from their provider on these claims (not patient responsibility, coinsurance, or deductibles), during the class period from Jan. 1, 2015, to Oct. 3, 2025." United provides behavioral health services and solutions. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d9gHkD at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Lauren M. Blas, Esq. Geoffrey Sigler, Esq. Derek K. Kraft, Esq. Nicole R. Matthews, Esq. Matthew G. Aiken, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: LBlas@gibsondunn.com GSigler@gibsondunn.com nmatthews@gibsondunn.com maiken@gibsondunn.com - and - Errol J. King, Jr., Esq. Craig L. Caesar, Esq. Katherine C. Mannino, Esq. Taylor J. Crousillac, Esq. Brittany H. Alexander, Esq. PHELPS DUNBAR LLP II City Plaza 400 Convention Street, Suite 1100 Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Telephone: (225) 376-0207 E-mail: errol.king@phelps.com craig.caesar@phelps.com katie.mannino@phelps.com taylor.crousillac@phelps.com brittany.alexander@phelps.com - and - Dennis B. Kass, Esq. Adam D. Afshar, Esq. MANNING & KASS ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP One California Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 217-6900 E-mail: dennis.kass@manningkass.com adam.afshar@manningkass.com UNITED GROUND: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tene, et al., v. United Ground Express, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01078 (D. Colo., Filed April 19, 2024), the Hon. Judge Daniel D. Domenico entered an order referring motion to Certify Class to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. United provides a variety of airport services in many locations.[CC] UNITED GROUND: Tene Labor Suit Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EVENS TENE, OSHARAE J. STEADHAM, and KARTIKA H. CARRION on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED GROUND EXPRESS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-01078-DDD-SBP (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order as follows: 1. Granting certification to a class defined as: "All non-managerial, hourly workers whom United Ground Express, Inc. employed exclusively at the Denver International Airport that worked more than 40 hours within a workweek and/or 12 hours within a day and were not paid at an overtime rate of one and one-half (1.5x) for time worked as a result of a shift trade at any time between Feb. 23, 2021 and Dec. 31, 2023." 2. Appointing the Plaintiffs Evens Tene, Osharae J. Steadham and Kartika H,. Carrion as Class Representatives; 3. Appointing Andrew H. Turner of Milstein Turner, PLLC as Class Counsel; and 4. Directing the parties to file a Joint Motion for Approval of Class Notice and Distribution Plan within 14 days after the entry of any Order granting preliminary certification. United provides a variety of airport services in many locations. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tuKZ4G at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew H. Turner, Esq. MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC 1490 Lafayette St. No. 304 Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (303) 305-8230 E-mail: andrew@milsteinturner.com UNITED HEALTHCARE: More Time to File Class Cert Bid Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reyna Dempsey, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, v. United Healthcare Services, Inc., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:24-cv-00425-EKL (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion to enlarge the deadline for Plaintiff to file her motion for class certification and subsequent deadlines flowing therefrom. Specifically, the parties propose the following deadlines: Event Deadline Deadline to file motion for class March 31, 2026 Certification: Deadline to file opposition to class May 4, 2026 Certification: Deadline to file reply in support of May 26, 2026 class certification: Close of fact discovery: Nov. 2, 2026 Close of expert discovery: Dec. 1, 2026 Deadline to file dispositive and Daubert Jan. 15, 2027 Motions: Accordingly, considering all of the currently set deadlines, the parties’ proposal will result in a two-month extension of the current case schedule. Finally, the requested extension results in a modest overall adjustment of approximately two months and will not otherwise disrupt the Court's schedule or prejudice any party. Accordingly, the parties request that the Court enter an order enlarging the deadline for the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification to March 31, 2026, and adjusting subsequent deadlines as proposed above. United provides hospital, medical, and other health services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ow4r5H at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence A. Organ, Esq. Julianne K. Stanford, Esq. Kira Brekke, Esq. CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS LAW GROUP 332 San Anselmo Avenue San Anselmo, CA 94960 Telephone: (415) 453-4740 Facsimile: (415) 785-7352 E-mail: larry@civilrightsca.com julianne@civilrightsca.com kira@civilrightsca.com - and - Matthew C. Helland, Esq. Anna P. Prakash, Esq. Ricardo Perez, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, LLP 235 Montgomery St., Suite 810 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 277-7235 Facsimile: (415) 277-7238 E-mail: helland@nka.com aprakash@nka.com rperez@nka.com The Defendants are represented by: Heather L. Richardson, Esq. Lauren M. Blas, Esq. Jennafer M. Tryck, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: HRichardson@gibsondunn.com LBlas@gibsondunn.com Jtryck@gibsondunn.com UNITED NATURAL: Seeks Evidentiary Hearing on Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sills v. United Natural Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02364-JGLC-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting request for Evidentiary Hearing on Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs oppose the Defendants' request, baldly asserting that a hearing is unnecessary and have submitted expert testimony. A one-day evidentiary hearing will allow the Court to hear from the experts in their own words and question the experts and parties about the issues and evidence. This will create a complete record for this Court to evaluate before reaching a decision on class certification. The Defendant engages in the distribution and retail of natural, organic, and specialty foods, as well as non-food products. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e9fXZb at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Nilofer Umar, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-7000 Facsimile: (312) 853-7036 E-mail: numar@sidley.com UNITED NATURAL: Sills Suit Seeks Leave to File Response Sur-Reply ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sills v. United Natural Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02364-JGLC-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting request to leave to file by October 27, 2025, a 15-page brief to respond to Defendants' sur-reply in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs thus request leave to file a further responsive brief (a sur-sur-reply) to address these new arguments and authority. Courts in this district have permitted such briefs to allow plaintiffs to support their motions for class certification. United offers natural products consisting of groceries and general merchandise, nutritional supplements, bulk and foodservice products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3k8MnY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kara Wolke, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: kwolke@glancylaw.com UNITED NETWORK: Bid to Seal Class Cert Support Docs OK'd -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY RANDALL, v. UNITED NETWORK FOR ORGAN SHARING; CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 2:23-cv-02576-MEMF-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order granting motion to seal in support of motion for class certification. The Plaintiff is instructed to refile the redacted document at Dkt. No. 219 1 on the public docket. United is a non-profit scientific and educational organization that administers the only organ procurement and transplantation network in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ster2p at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED NETWORK: Hearing for Summary Judgment Set for Nov. 6 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anthony Randall v. United Network for Organ Sharing et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02576-MEMF-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order as follows: The Court sets the motion for summary judgment for a hearing on Nov. 6, 2025, at 3:00 pm, and sets the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the Defendant's motion to exclude opinions of David Cutler for hearing on Dec. 11, 2025, at 10:00 am. United is a non-profit scientific and educational organization that administers the only organ procurement and transplantation network in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0wAkfJ at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Molina Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Declarations ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ESCOBAR MOLINA, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03417-BAH (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the motion for leave to file four supplemental declarations in support of their motion for preliminary injunction, to stay agency action, and for provisional class certification. The Plaintiffs seek leave to file four supplemental declarations containing evidence that was not available at the time of the underlying motion's filing. Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek leave to file an attorney declaration attaching public statements made by Defendants after the Plaintiffs filed their motion for a preliminary injunction that are relevant to the allegations in this case and supplemental declarations from putative class members with whom the Plaintiffs' counsel could not communicate earlier due to their detention and/or because they were unknown to the Plaintiffs' counsel until after the motion was filed. Mr. Pena's, Mr. Lopez Funez's, and Mr. Reyes Solis's declarations are relevant to whether the Plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. This evidence was not available to the Plaintiffs when they filed their underlying motion, because Mr. Peña, Mr. Reyes Solis, and Mr. Lopez Funez have been in ICE detention since September. Mr. Pena and Mr. Reyes Solis retained the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights (counsel for Plaintiffs in this action) for their immigration proceedings after the underlying motion was filed on October 3. In addition, due to the high volume and demand for calls at his detention facility, the Amica Center was only able to contact Mr. Lopez Funez after the underlying motion was filed on October 3. On Sept. 25, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed this action to challenge the Defendants' unlawful policy and practice of indiscriminately arresting people in Washington, D.C., whom federal agents perceive to be Latino without first obtaining individualized probable cause that the person both is present unlawfully and is a flight risk. DHS is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MU600z at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adina Appelbaum, Esq. Ian Austin Rose, Esq. Samantha Hsieh, Esq. AMICA CENTER FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS 1025 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 701 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 331-3320 E-mail: adina@amicacenter.org austin.rose@amicacenter.org sam@amicacenter.org - and - Aditi Shah, Esq. Scott Michelman, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 529 14th Street NW, Suite 722 Washington, DC 20045 Telephone: (202) 457-0800 E-mail: ashah@acludc.org smichelman@acludc.org - and - Kathryn Huddleston, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 915 15th Street NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (212) 549-2500 E-mail: khuddleston@aclu.org - and - Sirine Shebaya, Esq. Yulie Landan, Esq. Bridget Pranzatelli (D.C. Bar No. 90029726) NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT 1763 Columbia Road NW, Suite 175 Washington, D.C. 20009 Telephone: (213) 430-5521 E-mail: sirine@niplg.org yulie@nipnlg.org bridget@nipnlg.org - and - Jehan A. Patterson, Esq. Chris Kimmel, Esq. Alexandra Widas, Esq. Hassan Ahmad, Esq. Sean Berman, Esq. Austin Riddick, Esq. Eva H. Lilienfeld, Esq. Graham Glusman, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-6000 E-mail: jpatterson@cov.com ckimmel@cov.com awidas@cov.com hahmad@cov.com sberman@cov.com ariddick@cov.com elilienfeld@cov.com gglusman@cov.com - and - Madeleine Gates, Esq. WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS 700 14th Street NW, #400 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 319-1000 E-mail: madeleine_gates@washlaw.org - and - Ama Frimpong, Esq. CASA, INC. 8151 15th Avenue Hyattsville, MD 20783 Telephone: (240) 485-8844 E-mail: afrimpong@wearecasa.org UNITED STATES: Swaso's Bid for Appointing Counsel Nixed ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYRON SHAKEEL SWASO, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Case No. 4:25-cv-00079-CDL-AGH (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Amelia G. Helmick entered an order: -- granting the Plaintiff's motions to proceed in forma pauperis, and -- denying motion for appointing counsel. The Court recommended that the Plaintiff's claims be dismissed without prejudice and that his pending motion for class certification be denied as moot. The Plaintiff's vague allegations concerning the potential dissemination of his criminal history records therefore fail to state an actionable Bivens claim. These claims must be dismissed. Because the Court has already determined that each of these claims sound in habeas and issued an order resolving them, it cannot revisit those claims in this action. These claims should therefore be dismissed. The Plaintiff's claims arise from his present detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"). Plaintiff describes himself as "a thirty four year old [sic] citizen of Belize Central America" and is a "Businessman-Logistic Broker" who has been living in the United States since February 26, 2019. According to the Complaint, the Plaintiff was arrested on August 28, 2024, in Butts County, Georgia, for driving without a license and possession of less than one ounce of marijuana. The Plaintiff was convicted of driving without a license, and the Butts County Probate Court nolle prossed the marijuana charge. The Plaintiff contends a judge told him "there was no warrant from no agency" outstanding for his arrest at that time, and Plaintiff's family member paid a $1,500.00 bond. Department of Homeland Security is the US federal executive department responsible for public security. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QbvBoc at no extra charge.[CC] UNIVERSITY OF OREGON: Class Cert Reply Due Feb. 5, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Schroeder, et al., v. University of Oregon, Case No. 6:23-cv-01806 (D. Or., Filed Dec. 1, 2023), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting unopposed motion for extension of time. The Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Class Certification is due by Feb. 5, 2026. Discovery is to be completed by July 10, 2026, or 120 days after the Court's ruling on class certification, whichever is later. Ordered by Judge Michael J. McShane. The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Discrimination Based on Sex or Blindness. University of Oregon is a public research university in Eugene, Oregon.[CC] US LEGAL: Garza- Prevatti Files ADA Suit Over Unfair Surcharges --------------------------------------------------------------- TONNETTE GARZA-PREVATT1 and TAMMY TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. US LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01251 (M.D. Fla., October 16, 2025) is an action against the Defendant asserting claims for violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Plaintiff Garza-Prevatt was born Deaf and uses American Sign Language interpreters to effectively communicate in many settings, including legal settings. The Plaintiff filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against her employer in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on November 21, 2022. During the in-person and remote depositions, professional ASL interpreters were used to facilitate communication so that Plaintiff Garza-Prevatt could participate in the deposition process and provide testimony. The surcharges for "Interpreter Pages" in Plaintiff's case did not apply to orders for a deposition transcript for which an ASL interpreter was not present at the deposition. As a result of Defendant's actions, Plaintiff Garza Prevatt was discriminated against based on her disability and subjected to a deprivation of her rights to non-discrimination, says the suit. US Legal Support, Inc. offers several types of litigation support services, including legal transcription services for statements, interviews, depositions, and other proceedings.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com - and - Sharon Caserta, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN PLLC 501 Riverside Ave., Suite 1200 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 361-0078 Videophone: (904) 245-1121 Facsimile: (904) 361-4305 E-mail: scaserta@forthepeople.com VENEZUELA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Zahn Due Jan. 5, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SABINE ZAHN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA, Case No. 1:24-cv-09271-JPC-HJR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo entered an order granting the Plaintiff's joint letter proposing a briefing schedule for the Plaintiff's forthcoming motion for class certification. The Parties shall adhere to the following schedule: -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due by Jan. 5, 2026. -- The Defendant's opposition brief is due by Mar. 4, 2026. -- The Plaintiff's reply brief is due by Apr. 3, 2026. Venezuela is a country on the northern coast of South America with diverse natural attractions. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=06HSNo at no extra charge.[CC] VIA RENEWABLES: Clark's Bid for Class Certification Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN CLARK, v. VIA RENEWABLES, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00568-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court sets a further case management conference for Dec. 3, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. via Zoom video. An updated joint case management conference statement is due one week in advance. The Plaintiff has not shown his claims or defenses are typical of the class, that he is an adequate representative of the class, or that common issues of law or fact predominate. The Plaintiff Clark, on behalf of four proposed classes, alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The Plaintiff contends his residential phone number is on the federal Do Not Call Registry and Defendant, Via Renewables, Inc., called his phone number ten times and left identical pre-recorded voice messages, all in violation of the TCPA. The Court previously denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice and ordered the Plaintiff to make an offer of proof as to whether amendment of the class would be futile. The Plaintiff's renewed motion offers four sub-classes. The Plaintiff outlines two amended 'broad' sub-classes and, in the alternative, two new 'narrow' sub-classes. Broad DNC Sub-Class No. 1 "All persons within the United States of America who have or had a residentially subscribed telephone number registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry and whose residentially subscribed number appears on call logs showing Energy BPO Corp. ("Energy BPO") outbound calls with campaign designations showing those numbers were called to sell Spark Energy services (e.g. Ex. X (convoso), column R, Campaign Name of "Spark Energy – CA", or Ex. X (export), column F Campaign ID of "1005" or "Spark_1005") to whose telephone number Energy BPO transmitted two or more telemarketing calls in one calendar year at any time from Jan. 30, 2020 to the present, including up to and through trial." Broad Prerecord Sub-Class No. 2 "All persons within the United States of America who have or had a residentially subscribed telephone number and whose residentially subscribed number appears on call logs showing Energy BPO calls with campaign designations showing those numbers were called to sell Spark Energy services (e.g. Ex. X (convoso), column R, Campaign Name of "Spark Energy – CA", or Ex. X (export), column F Campaign ID of "1005" or "Spark_1005") to whose telephone number Energy BPO transmitted a prerecorded message at any time from Jan. 30, 2020 to the present, including up to and through trial." Narrow DNC Sub-Class No. 1 "All persons within the United States of America who have or had a residentially subscribed telephone number they registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry and whose residentially subscribed number appears on both call logs showing Energy BPO Corp. ("Energy BPO") outbound calls (e.g., Convoso call logs) and the Acquire Crowd lead records showing the phone number and other lead information was allegedly garnered from the www.bestamericansavings.com website (e.g., column N) to whose telephone number Energy BPO transmitted two or more telemarketing calls in one calendar year at any time from Jan. 30, 2020 to the present, including up to and through trial." Narrow Prerecord Sub-Class No. 2 "All persons within the United States of America who have or had a residentially subscribed telephone number and whose residentially subscribed number appears on both call logs showing Energy BPO Corp. ("Energy BPO") outbound calls (e.g., Convoso call logs) and the Acquire Crowd lead records showing the phone number and other lead information was allegedly garnered from the www.bestamericansavings.com website (e.g. column N) to whose telephone number Energy BPO transmitted a prerecorded message at any time from Jan. 30, 2020 to the present, including up to and through trial." Via is an independent retail energy services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y6WRUG at no extra charge.[CC] VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY: Faw Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEREDITH FAW, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:23-cv-03897-CMR (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) Certifying a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with the class defined as follows: "All Villanova University students whose payment obligation of tuition and/or fees was satisfied for the Spring 2020 semester and who were enrolled in at least one in person on- campus class (the "Class")." The definition of the class excludes students who received full Villanova-funded scholarships covering all payment obligations for the Spring 2020 term; (2) Appointing Plaintiff Meredith Faw as Class Representative; (3) Appointing Nicholas A. Colella of Lynch Carpenter, LLP and Michael A. Tompkins and Anthony M. Alesandro of Leeds Brown Law, P.C. as Class Counsel; and (4) Directing the Parties to meet-and-confer regarding the proposed content and methodology of a notice to the members of the certified class as required by Rule 23(c)(2)(B), and to submit their proposal(s) for approval within 14 days of the Court's order. Villanova is a private Catholic research university in Villanova, Pennsylvania. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FH3DQW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: nickc@lcllp.com - and - Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Anthony Alesandro, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. 1 Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com VILLARA CORPORATION: Ortega Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Villara Corporation, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Silvano Mejia Ortega, and all others similarly situated v. Villara Corporation, Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 25CV025267 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Villara -- https://villara.com/ -- offers heating, cooling, plumbing, and solar services, including installation, repair, and maintenance, plus air quality solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher L. Burrows, Esq. BURROWS LAW FIRM 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 800 Los Angeles, CA 90025-7140 Phone: 310-526-9998 Fax: 424-644-2446 Email: cburrows@cburrowslaw.com WALGREEN CO: Ferguson Files Fraud Suit in N.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walgreen Co. The case is captioned as JASON FERGUSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WALGREEN CO., Case No. 4:25-cv-08299-JST (N.D. Cal., September 30, 2025). The suit is brought against the Defendant for fraud claims. Walgreen Co. is a pharmacy store chain headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Weston, Esq. THE WESTON FIRM 1405 Morena Boulevard, Suite 201 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 798-2006 Email: greg@westonfirm.com WALMART INC: Case Management Order Entered in McEnheimer Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT MCENHEIMER, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees, v. WALMART, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00046-WSH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge W. Scott Hardy entered a second case management order: 1. Discovery related to an anticipated motion for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 shall be completed by June 22, 2026. 2. A status conference shall be held on April 20, 2026 at 11:30 AM. Another status conference shall be held at the conclusion of Phase II discovery, on June 29, 2026 at 11:30 AM. 3. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed on or before Aug. 6, 2026; the Defendant's opposition shall be filed on or before Sept. 21, 2026; and the Plaintiffs' reply, if any, shall be filed on or before Oct. 21, 2026. Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount stores, and grocery stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6ddr1V at no extra charge.[CC] WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: Seeks Class Cert Bid Oral Argument --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASTRID M. FLOWERS, On behalf of themself and all others similarly situated, v. THE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY d/b/a Washington University School of Medicine, Case No. 4:24-cv-01504-ZMB (E.D. Mo.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its request for oral argument on the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify collective action, equitably toll the statute of limitations and facilitate notice to potential class members. The Plaintiff argues the court should follow the two-step certification process established in Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987). Even if the Court applies Lusardi, the University believes oral argument is beneficial to explain how the Plaintiff's motion fails to meet even the Lusardi standard. Additionally, the University believes, oral argument will be useful to further explain why the putative class, as proposed by Plaintiff, is improperly overly broad and would result in improper certification of Post-bac scholars and other individuals who bear no similarity to Plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed the motion on Oct. 6, 2025, and the University filed its memorandum in opposition on Oct. 20, 2025. The Defendant is the medical school of Washington University in St. Louis. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yUyzWV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip E. Oliphant, Esq. Edward J. Rolwes, Esq. THE ROLWES LAW FIRM, LLC 1951 Mignon Avenue Memphis, TN 38107 Telephone: (901) 519-9135 Facsimile: (901) 979-2499 E-mail: Poliphant@rolweslaw.com Erolwes@rolweslaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Amy L. Blaisdell, Esq. Melanie C. Gravlin, Esq. UB GREENSFELDER LLP 10 S. Broadway, Suite 2000 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 241-9090 Facsimile: (314) 241-8624 E-mail: ABlaisdell@ubglaw.com LGravlin@ubglaw.com WEST SHORE HOME: Silvis Sues Over Unsolicited Calls --------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Silvis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WEST SHORE HOME, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-05896-SKV (W.D. Wash., Oct. 3, 2025), is brought against the Defendant under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited telemarketing phone calls or text messages. Telemarketing calls are intrusive. A great many people object to these calls, which interfere with their lives, tie up their phone lines, and cause confusion and disruption on phone records. Faced with growing public criticism of abusive telephone marketing practices. The Plaintiff now files this lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, requiring the Defendant to cease placing unsolicited calls to residential numbers before 8 a.m. and after 9 p.m., and to individuals who have previously requested to no longer be contacted, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person that resides in this District. The Defendant is a limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com WILKES UNIVERSITY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Bufford Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ERIN BUFFORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILKES UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01962-JFS (M.D. Pa., October 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class members' sensitive personally identifiable information. The Defendant detected potentially suspicious activity on a portion of its network environment and, through an investigation, on September 22, 2025 Defendant determined that Plaintiffs and Class Members' PII may have been accessed without authorization between January 25, 2025 and January 26, 2025. In failing to adequately protect Plaintiff's and the Class' private information, failing to adequately notify them about the breach, and by obfuscating the nature of the breach, the Defendant violated state and federal law and harmed Plaintiff and Class Members, says the suit. The Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class are victims of Defendant's alleged negligence and inadequate cyber security measures. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated individuals, brings this lawsuit seeking damages, injunctive relief, and restitution, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, the calculation of which will be based on information in Defendant's possession. Wilkes University is private university in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. It has over 2,000 undergraduate students and over 3,000 graduate students.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: erunfeld@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE Ist Ave, Suite 706 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com WILMINGTON TRUST: Henry Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARLOW HENRY, on behalf of the BSC Ventures Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, v. WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01925-JLH (D. Del.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) granting final approval of the Settlement; (2) granting final certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only; (3) finding that the Settlement Notice satisfied the requirements of due process and Rule 23; (4) finding the Settlement to be fair, reasonable and adequate; (5) dismissing on the merits and with prejudice all claims asserted against the Defendants; (6) retaining jurisdiction of all matters relating to the interpretation, administration, implementation, effectuation, and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement; (7) approving the awards of the Plaintiff's Counsel Attorneys' fees in the amount of $2,640,000.00 and litigation expenses in the amount of $445,700.19, and awarding $25,000 to the Plaintiff Marlow Henry as a service award as requested in their separately filed motion for attorneys' fees and expenses; and (8) approving the settlement administration expenses necessary to effectuate the Settlement. Wilmington accepts deposits, makes loans, and provides various financial services for the public. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zcOTFQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Ryan T. Jenny, Esq. Patrick O. Muench, Esq. Laura E. Babiak, Esq. David A. Felice, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson St., NW, Ste. 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com rjenny@baileyglasser.com dfelice@baileyglasser.com - and - Daniel Feinberg, Esq. Todd Jackson, Esq. Mary Bortscheller, Esq. FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP 2030 Addison Street, Suite 500 Berkeley, CA 94704 Telephone: (510) 269-7998 E-mail: dan@feinbergjackson.com todd@feinbergjackson.com mary@feinbergjackson.com WM WHOLESALE LLC: Hernandez Files Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against WM Wholesale, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Josue Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WM Wholesale, LLC, AK Futures, LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-02228-MRA-JDE (C.D. Cal., Oct. 3, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. WM Wholesale LLC is a Delaware limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel Dashiell Smith, Esq. Aleksandr Litvinov, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Suite 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 377-7404 Fax: (888) 410-0415 Email: joel@skclassactions.com sasha@skclassactions.com - and - Brittany Skye Scott, Esq. Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 28 Geary Street, Suite 650, No. 1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 839-7000 Fax: (888) 410-0415 Email: brittany@skclassactions.com yeremey@skclassactions.com - and - Pamela Erin Prescott, Esq. Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: pamela@kazlg.com ak@kazlg.com WORKERS COMPENSATION: Ramos Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Workers Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau. The case is styled as Marcos Ramos, Matthew Sacks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Workers Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau Of California, Case No. CGC25630378 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Business Torts." Workers Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau (WCIRB( -- https://www.wcirb.com/ -- is a private, nonprofit association of insurance companies licensed to transact workers' compensation insurance in the state of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carly Marie Roman, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: 872-263-1100 WORLD ONE LAW: Class Cert Bid Filing in Palmer Due Dec. 1, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN PALMER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WORLD ONE LAW GROUP PLLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01408-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge entered an order setting the following deadlines and briefing schedule: Deadline Date Joinder of Parties Deadline: Nov. 20, 2025 Amended Pleadings: Dec. 18, 2025 Deadline to complete fact discovery: Oct. 23, 2026 The Plaintiff's expert disclosures due by: Dec. 1, 2026 Deadline for the Plaintiff to file motion Dec. 1, 2026 for class certification: The Defendant's expert disclosures due by: Dec. 29, 2026 Deadline for the Defendant to respond to Dec. 29, 2026 the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file reply Jan. 24, 2027 in support of motion for class certification: All discovery completed by: March 31, 2027 The Defendant is an immigration law firm that focuses exclusively on business visas, family immigration, asylum and other immigration cases. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0bZyK0 at no extra charge.[CC] YALE NEW: Class Settlement in Nathanson Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nathanson v. Yale New Haven Health Services Corp. (RE: YALE NEW HAVEN HEALTH SERVICES CORP. DATA BREACH LITIGATION), Case No. 3:25-cv-00609-SRU (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Stefan Underhill entered an order granting motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement: Provisional Certification of the Settlement Class I provisionally certify the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, finding that I am likely to certify it at the final approval stage: "All living individuals residing in the United States who were sent a notice of the Data Incident indicating that their Private Information may have been impacted in the Data Incident." The Settlement Class specifically excludes: (a) all persons who are directors, officers, members, and agents of Defendant, or their respective subsidiaries and affiliated companies, and any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest; (b) governmental entities; (c) the Judge assigned to the Action, that Judge's immediate family, and Court staff; and (d) any person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal activity occurrence of the Data Incident, or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge. The Plaintiffs are designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A., Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC, and William B. Federman of Federman & Sherwood are designated as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). A Final Approval Hearing shall take place on March 3, 2026, at 4:00 p.m. Class Counsel intends to seek an award of up to one-third of the Settlement Fund as attorneys' fees, as well as reimbursement of reasonable litigation costs, and Service Awards of up to $2,500.00 per Class Representative to be paid from the Settlement Fund. Yale-New operates as a non-profit health care organization. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p3i2TM at no extra charge.[CC] ZKTECO USA: Faces Jiang Class Suit Over Biometrics Collection ------------------------------------------------------------- WENCONG JIANG, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals v. ZKTECO USA LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company, d/b/a NGTeco, and GOFO, INC., a New York corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-12826 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 21, 2025) is a class action for damages and other legal and equitable remedy resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendants in collecting, obtaining, storing and/or using Plaintiff's, and other similarly situated individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric information without informed written consent in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals in Illinois were required to scan their fingerprints on Defendant, NGT's biometric devices to keep track of the amount of time Plaintiffs were working for Defendant, NGT's customers in Illinois, including (but not limited to) Defendant, GOFO. ZKTeco is a manufacturer of physical security solutions in USA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAYWERS JORDAN RICHARDS PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com - and - Shanshan Zou, Esq. VINCIT LAW, P.C. 1 Sansome Street, Suite 3500 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 677-4497 E-mail: sszlaw@mercalaw.com ZOETIS INC: Court Narrows Claims in Hartney TAC ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHY HARTNEY, ROMOLO, JENNIFER KRISTIN JOHNSON, ASHLEY LEVERNEZ, DEBRA FLASKA, PRATIBHA PRINCE, ASHLEIGH BOHLMAN, and VINCENTA WOLFE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. ZOETIS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-09698-SDW-AME (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Wigenton entered a judgment granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion, and dismissing without prejudice the third amended complaint. The Plaintiffs shall have 30 days to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. Before this Court is Defendant Zoetis, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third Amended Class Action Complaint (D.E. 35 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 12(b)(6) and to strike class allegations. Because Plaintiffs allege no duty or breach independent of product-liability principles, Count 11 is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs may replead negligence in the alternative if they can allege a duty distinct from the NJPLA, and such claims may be viable under other states' laws if the NJPLA is ultimately found inapplicable. While this Court agrees that differences among state laws and the necessity of individualized determinations may pose hurdles down the road, it is premature to rule on class certification at the pleading stage. Discovery may shed light on whether common issues predominate, and this Court will not preemptively deny Plaintiffs the opportunity to seek class certification. Accordingly, the motion to strike class allegations is denied without prejudice to Zoetis's ability to challenge certification at a later stage. The putative class action arises from the administration of Librela, a monoclonal antibody marketed by Zoetis for the control of osteoarthritis related pain in dogs. Eight named Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of themselves and a proposed nationwide class, alleging that Zoetis misrepresented Librela's safety, failed to warn veterinarians and pet owners about severe adverse events, and breached various statutory and common law duties. The Plaintiffs’ causes of action include failure to warn, design defect, breach of express and implied warranties, consumer fraud violations under several state statutes, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. Librela is a long acting monoclonal antibody (bedinvetmab) administered by monthly injection for the management of osteoarthritis in dogs. Zoetis is an animal healthcare company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LpDa0A 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 ***