251104.mbx

251104.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, November 4, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 220 Headlines 3M CO: Continues to Defend PFAS Suits in Ontario, British Columbia 3M CO: PFAS Class Suit Trial Date Not Yet Set in Mass. 3M CO: Property Damage Class Suit Discovery Ongoing in S.C. ABBOTT LAB: Must Oppose Renewed Class Cert. Bid by Nov. 7 ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Class Cert. Notice Approved in Hamm Suit ACE TARIFF: Filing for Settlement Status Report Due Nov. 23, 2026 ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Class settlement in Loschiavo Gets Final Nod AETNA LIFE: Prolow ERISA Suit Seeks Final Nod of $3.MM Settlement AG-PRO LLC: Employee Class Wins Conditional Certification ALDI INC: Faces Rusia Suit Over Racial Discrimination, Retaliation ALL SEASON: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Tympel Due April 20, 2026 ALLIED ACCOUNTANTS: Mott Seeks Leave to Conduct Class Certification ALPHABET INC: Plaintiffs Can Remove Incorrectly Filed Class Docs ALPHABET INC: Plaintiffs Seek Rule 23 Class Certification AMAZON RETAIL: Class Cert Filing in Chicas Suit Due August 3, 2026 AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to April 20, 2026 AMAZON.COM INC: Filing for Class Cert in Antitrust Suit Due Dec. 5 AMAZON.COM INC: Wilson Bid on Data Production Post–Class Cert OK'd AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Turner Seeks Leave to File SAC AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Won Class Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice ANN ARBOR, MI: Class Settlement in Yannotti Suit Gets Final Nod APPLE INC: Federal Judge Decertifies Apple App Store Class Action ARANDELL CORP: Must File Class Cert Response by Jan. 23, 2026 ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Fact Discovery Due April 3, 2026 AVEANNA HEALTHCARE: Powell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AZEK GROUP LLC: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website B-TWO OPERATIONS: Stewart Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois BAKER COUNTY, OR: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Feb. 9, 2026 BAR-S FOODS CO: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Seeks Extension of Class Cert Deadlines BROADMARK REALTY: Brian Grant Appointed as Lead Plaintiff BROOKLYN BEDDING: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Feb. 3, 2026 CALTON & ASSOCIATES: Seeks to Dismiss Kreienkamp Class Suit CAPITAL ONE: Bid for Class Certification Withdrawn CAPITAL ONE: Hoard Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply CARDONE CAPITAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Pino Due Dec. 10 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Class Cert. Bid in Llewellyn Due April 3, 2026 CHICAGO, IL: Costanzo Sues for Discrimination and Harassment CMS ENERGY: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by Jan. 23, 2026 COMFORTWEAR COLLECTIONS: Deadline to File Class Cert Extended COMPASS WASHINGTON: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Dec. 21, 2026 CONSOL PENNSYLVANIA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 11, 2026 CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 22, 2026 CORKTOWN TAPHOUSE: Faces Sanford Suit Over Withheld Tips CORNERSTONE FIRST: Loan Officer Class Wins Certification CORNERSTONE FIRST: Must File class Cert Opposition by Nov. 21 CREDIT BUREAU: Summary Judgment Reply Briefs Due Nov. 14 CRITERION COLLECTION: Settlement Class Cert Gets Final Nod CROWDVEST LLC: Joint Status Report in Johnson Due Nov. 19 CRUMBL LLC: Filing for Class Cert. in Watson Due April 3, 2026 CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Conriquez Suit Seeks Class Certification CVS CAREMARK: Court Vacates Class Cert Deadline in Hamburger DANIELLE OUTLAW: Oral Argument Hearing in Flacco Set for Nov. 3 DEMARINI SPORTS: Duryea Sues Over Deceptive Baseball Bat Ads DISCORD INC: Faces Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Plaintiffs Seek to File Supplemental Brief DIVIDEND SOLAR: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Oct. 7, 2026 DOLLAR TREE: Filing of Amended Complaint Due Nov. 6 DONALD TRUMP: Plaintiffs Must File Replies by Nov. 10 DONALD TRUMP: Sanchez Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP: Scheduling Conference in Joukjian Extended DRINK BREZ: Lopez Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users DULCICH INC: Williams Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info EAGLE MINE: Faces Chartre Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime EARTHGRAINS DISTRIBUTION: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Munoz ESTEE LAUDER: Installs Data Trackers Without Consent, Dawkins Says EZ ADVOCATES: Bush Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: $4.62MM Settlement Gets Initial Nod FIRST STUDENT: Renewed Bid for Settlement Prelim. Approval Tossed FOOD SYSTEMS: Bid for More Time to File Response/Reply Due Nov. 17 FOODPREP SOLUTIONS: Gawlik Seeks Conditional Cert of Action FPI MANAGEMENT: "Duffy" Class Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval GETAWAY TAMPA: Conditional Cert of FLSA Collective Sought GKN DRIVELINE: Court Denies Pre-2020 Class Certification in "Ayers" GLOBAL E-TRADING: Sihler Seeks Approval of Attys' Fees & Costs GOOGLE INC: Parties in Cookie Suit Must Submit Joint Class Report GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE: Robinson Sues Over Inadequate Data Security GRANT MONEY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Revell Due July 10, 2026 HANDI-FOIL CORP: Seeks Brief Adjournment for Class Cert Hearing HASBRO INC: Scheduling Conference Order Entered in My Gameroom HAWTHORN SENIOR: Ortiz Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. HESS BAKKEN: Court Strikes Class Allegations in Penman HEWLETT-PACKARD: $625,000 Settlement in Caccavale Gets Final Nod HI-SCHOOL PHARMACY: Class Settlement in Landin Gets Final Nod HILCORP ENERGY: AB's Seafood Suit Transferred to W.D. Louisiana HOSPITAL SISTERS: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Reply HRM RESOURCES: McCormick Wins Bid for Class Certification HUNGRY POT: Dengtao Seeks More Time to File Class Certification HUNGRY POT: Filing for Class Cert Bid in CAO Extended to Nov. 26 HYUNDAI MOTOR: Hageman Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal INNOVATIVE TAX: Bid to Amend CMO IN Hewett Class Suit Granted INSTITUTE OF CULINARY: Collins Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Class Cert Hearing Set for Nov. 19 JACKSON LABORATORY: Class Cert Filing Extended to April 17, 2026 JAMES UTHMEIER: Court Stays Bid to Certify Class Pending Appeal JANI-KING INTERNATIONAL: All Discovery Stayed in Cossette JBS USA: $1.1MM Class Settlement in Brown Suit Gets Initial Nod JEFFREY FEWELL: Case Management Order Entered in Wertz Suit JOSEPHINE COUNTY, OR: Class Cert Bid Filing Changed to Feb. 9, 2026 JUAN BALTASAR: Gutierrez's Emergency TRO Granted KAMAN & CUSIMANO: Class Settlement in Oie Gets Initial Nod KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS: Court Certifies Janitor Class in "Barbosa" KNIGHT BARRY: Class Settlement in Raner Suit Gets Initial Nod KNIGHT PORT: Class Cert Hearing in Aquita Set for Jan. 23, 2026 LCT OPCO: Court OK's Settlement in Paraham LITE STAR: Class Settlement in Chea Suit Gets Initial Nod LIVE NATION: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Kearns Suit Wins Class Certification LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Filing for Class Cert. Due Jan. 12, 2026 LUXURBAN HOTELS: Bid to Stay ZCAP Action Tossed MARION COUNTY, OR: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Feb. 9, 2026 MARK OLSON: Court Certifies Class & Subclasses in Mirabelli Suit MARUCHAN INC: Mora Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. MAURICIO RAULD: Goldovsky Bid for Class Certification Tossed MCCONWAY & TORLEY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Santana Says MCKESSON MEDICAL: Guzman Seeks More Time to File Class Cert MDL 3035: Bid for More Time to File Opposition OK'd in Labor Suit MENKE INC: Day Seeks FLSA Collective Notice to Employees METROPOLITAN LEARNING: Heras Bid for Atty's Fees Partly OK'd MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC: Thomas Allowed Leave to File FAC NATUROPATHICA HOLISTIC: Bid to Stay Class Cert. Motions Tossed NCAA: Robinson Seeks to Alter Judgment NCR CORPORATION: Mirabal Suit Seeks Class Certification NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE: Fact Discovery Due Dec. 20 NEVADA GOLD: Plaintiffs' Filing for Class Reply Extended to Nov. 4 NEW HAMPSHIRE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response NEW YORK: Class Certification Bid Held in Abeyance NEWPORT GROUP: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Opposition NORTH CAROLINA: Plaintiff's Bid for Class Cert Partly OK'd NORTH MEMORIAL: Bid to Compel Discovery Granted in Kaliher Suit ODD CONSTRUCTION: Faces Dutan Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices OPENAI INC: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Multi-District Class Action OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Liberty Seeks to Certify Class Action ORRSTOWNBANK: Filing for Class Cert. in Pryde Due Feb. 6, 2026 PANDA RESTAURANT: Thorne Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages PAY LESS REALTY: Torres Sues Over Discriminative Property PEOPLEGURU HOLDINGS: Vasquez Files Suit in M.D. Florida PERMOBIL INC: Garofalo Sues Over Deceptive Sale & Defective Devices PIER 4 LLC: Cheli Sues Over Inaccessible Property PRIME HEALTHCARE: Faces Williams Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. PROSPECT HOTEL SERVICES: Villegas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ROYAL NEBULA MEDIA: Sherba Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Fox Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification SALESLOFT INC: Courtney Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info SKYWEST AIRLINES: Petelo Suit Transferred to S.D. California SOLARAY LLC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Powers Alleges ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL: Abraham Suit Removed to D. Maryland STAT COURIER: Court Grants Preliminary OK of "Jamision" Settlement SUPPLYING DEMAND: Lewis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SWEEPSTEAKS LIMITED: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Practices SWIFT HOME: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Spam Calls and Texts TOPGOLF USA: Cohan Sues Over Discriminative Property TREEHOUSE FOODS: $4MM Settlement Final Court OK Hearing Set Dec 12 ULTA SALON: Faces Class Lawsuit Over "Conscious Beauty" Products UNITED HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Filing Extended to March 31, 2026 UNITED STATES: Singla Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois VESSEL GOLF: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website VICTOR ZACARAEV: Juliand Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. WILKES UNIVERSITY: Pawelzik Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info WILLIS-KNIGHTON: Agrees to Settle Privacy Class Suit for $2.1MM WINIX GLOBAL LLC: Yant Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ********* 3M CO: Continues to Defend PFAS Suits in Ontario, 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 PFAS class suits in the Ontario Superior Court and the British Columbia Supreme Court. In August and September 2024, putative class actions were filed against 3M Canada, 3M Company, and other defendants in the Ontario Superior Court and British Columbia Supreme Court on behalf of all private well owners in Canada whose well water contains PFAS. The lawsuits seek compensatory damages for the investigation, sampling, testing, assessment, treatment, remediation, and monitoring of well water as well as punitive damages. In July 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion to discontinue the Ontario action. 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: PFAS Class Suit Trial Date Not Yet Set in Mass. ------------------------------------------------------ 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 federal court of Massachusetts has not yet scheduled trial date for the consolidated PFAS contamination class suit. In Massachusetts, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in August 2022 in state court against 3M and several other defendants alleging PFAS contamination from waste generated by local paper manufacturing facilities that was subsequently incorporated into biosolids at a local composting facility. The lawsuit alleges property damage and seeks medical monitoring on behalf of plaintiffs within the Town of Westminster. This case was removed to federal court, where it was consolidated with a previously-filed federal case involving similar allegations and claims against 3M’s co-defendants. In February and March 2024, 3M and the remaining defendants answered the complaint and filed cross claims against one another. In April 2025, the class action was consolidated with another class action brought by the same plaintiffs against different defendants. With the exception of certain limited discovery, class certification proceedings in the original action are stayed until April 2026 to allow the cases to proceed to a single class certification hearing, which is expected in the third quarter of 2026. No trial date has been set. 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: Property Damage Class Suit Discovery Ongoing in S.C. ----------------------------------------------------------- 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 discovery is ongoing for the property damage class suit in the state court of South Carolina. In South Carolina, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in South Carolina state court against 3M and other defendants in March 2022. The lawsuit alleges property damage from contamination from PFAS compounds used and disposed of at a defunct textile plant in Society Hill, South Carolina. The operative complaint seeks both property and punitive damages. The case has been removed to federal court. Discovery is proceeding in the putative property damage class action. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] ABBOTT LAB: Must Oppose Renewed Class Cert. Bid by Nov. 7 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONDALISA LEGRAND, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Case No. 3:22-cv-05815-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Hixson entered an order extending the Parties' deadlines relating to the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification. 1. Abbott's deadline to file an Opposition to the renewed motion for class certification shall be Nov. 7, 2025. 2. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply in support of the renewed motion for class certification shall be Nov. 21, 2025. 3. The hearing on the renewed motion for class certification, currently scheduled for Nov. 20, 2025, shall be continued to Dec. 11, 2025. Abbott is an American multinational medical devices and health care company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sxXBii at no extra charge.[CC] ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Class Cert. Notice Approved in Hamm Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY HAMM, ET AL., v. ACADIA HEALTHCARE CO., INC., ET AL., Case No. 2:20-cv-01515-SM-DPC (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Susie Morgan entered an order approving the parties' proposed notice of class certification. Acadia is an American provider of for-profit behavioral healthcare services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Veu2rA at no extra charge.[CC] ACE TARIFF: Filing for Settlement Status Report Due Nov. 23, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Paramount Tariff Services, Inc., v. Ace Tariff Solutions, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-03242-ODW-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis Wright, II entered a scheduling and case management order: Trial: Feb. 2, 2027 Hearing on motions in limine: Jan. 25, 2027 Deadline to file status report re settlement: Nov. 23, 2026 Deadline for hearing motions: Nov. 9, 2026 Deadline to conduct settlement conference: Nov. 2, 2026 Expert discovery cutoff: Oct. 9, 2026 Percipient/Fact discovery cutoff: Sept. 18, 2026 Deadline to hear motion to amend pleadings Jan. 14, 2026 or add parties (must comply with FRCP 15(a)(2): A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n7HVIS at no extra charge.[CC] ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Class settlement in Loschiavo Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ronnie Loschiavo and Shawn Selby, et al., on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, V. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-05069-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Watson entered an order granting motion for final approval of class action settlement. 1. Arms-length and good-faith negotiations between the parties and their counsel, who have extensive experience litigating wage-and hour claims, resulted in a Settlement Agreement encompassing an FLSA Collective, an Ohio Class, a New York Class, and a Kentucky Class. 2. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court also finds that the Settlement Agreement was entered into in good faith, at arm's length, and without collusion. The Court approves and directs consummation of the Settlement Agreement. 3. The Court approves the Release provided in the Settlement Agreement and orders that, as of the Effective Date, the Released Claims will be released as to Released Parties. 4. The Court awards Class Counsel $466, 666.00 in attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses of $40,541.14, to be paid according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. This amount of fees and reimbursement is fair and reasonable. The Court awards the Named Plaintiffs-Ronnie Loschiavo, Shawn Selby, Derek Thompson, and Douglas Scott-$10, 000 each as representatives to be paid according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 5. The Court grants final approval to its appointment of Matthew J.P. Coffman and Adam C. Gedling (Coffman Legal, LLC) and Daniel I. Bryant and Matthew B. Bryant (Bryant Legal, LLC) as Class Counsel. In October 2021, Ronnie Loschiavo and Shawn Selby sued Defendant for unpaid overtime wages and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and analogous Ohio state laws. For settlement purposes, the Ohio Class includes "All hourly, non-exempt production/yard workers who worked for the Defendant at any of its facilities in Ohio from Oct. 18, 2019, through the date of Court preliminary approval of the Settlement." Loschiavo serves as the representative for the Ohio Class. The New York Class includes "All hourly, non-exempt production/yard workers who worked for the Defendant at any of its facilities in New York from July 12, 2016, to the date of Court preliminary approval of the Settlement." Scott serves as the representative for the New York Class. Finally, the Kentucky Class includes: "All hourly, non exempt production/yard workers who worked for the Defendant at any of its facilities in Kentucky from July 12, 2017, to the date of Court preliminary approval of the Settlement." Thompson serves as the representative for the Kentucky Class. Under the Settlement Agreement, Defendant agrees to pay a "Global Settlement Fund" amounting to $1 ,400, 000, which consists of (1 ) the "Net Settlement Fund, " meaning settlement awards (/. e., alleged unpaid overtime compensation) for FLSA Collective members and Class Members; (2) service awards of $10, 000 to each Named Plaintiff; (3) reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation expenses; and (4) settlement administration costs. Advanced is a manufacturer of high performance thermoplastic corrugated pipe. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Oct. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S9jYVh at no extra charge.[CC] AETNA LIFE: Prolow ERISA Suit Seeks Final Nod of $3.MM Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON PROLOW and MARK LEMMERMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 9:20-cv-80545-KAM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) granting final approval of the Settlement and certifying the Settlement Class; (2) granting Class Counsel's unopposed application for Attorneys' fees and costs; and (3) approving a separate, agreed-upon general release payment to Lemmerman. The Settlement Class is defined as: "All members, participants, and beneficiaries of ERISA- governed employee welfare benefit plans administered and/or insured by ALIC, diagnosed with Prostate Cancer (specific ICD-10 codes as identified in the Settlement) where (a) the individual was diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, and (b) with respect to proton beam therapy ("PBT") precertification requests submitted after Oct. 9, 2020, had an intact prostate, and (c) received a denial from Jan. 1, 2015, to March 31, 2024, and (d) such denial cites "experimental," "investigational," "unproven" "superior," "superiority," and/or "more effective" as the basis for the denial of the requested PBT delivery code, unless such terms were expressly included in the definition of "medical necessity"/"medically necessary" set forth in the applicable member's Plan Document/Benefits Booklet, who: (a) Had a PBT precertification request submitted prior to the date of service (unless precertification was not required by the applicable Plan Document/Benefits Booklet), and (b) subsequently received PBT for the same diagnosis code with no allowed post-service PBT benefit claim(s), and (c) a denied post-service claim for the delivery of PBT for the same diagnosis code, and (d) had no allowed claims related to the same diagnosis code for an alternative recognized medical treatment (specific Current Procedural Terminology ("CPT") codes as identified in the Settlement) not including claims related to treatment plans that include PBT in combination with another modality (e.g., concurrent chemotherapy radiation), or (2) (a) Had an approved PBT precertification request, that was submitted prior to the date of service, and (b) subsequently received PBT for the same diagnosis code with no allowed post-service PBT benefit claim(s), and (c) a denied post-service claim for the delivery of PBT for the same diagnosis code, and (d) had no allowed claims related to the same diagnosis code for an alternative recognized medical treatment (specific CPT codes as identified in the Settlement) not including claims related to treatment plans that include PBT in combination with another modality (e.g., concurrent chemotherapy radiation)." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) individuals who received coverage for PBT or for an alternative recognized medical treatment from another carrier; and (2) individuals who received a final pre-certification or post service claim denial for an administrative reason (i.e., member not covered under an insured or administered Aetna health benefit plan). The case arises from ALIC's denial of coverage for PBT treatment for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. This matter commenced on March 31, 2020, by Plaintiff Sharon Prolow only. Plaintiff alleged that ALIC systematically applied its PBT medical guidelines to deny PBT on the basis that it was "unproven" or "not medically necessary. " The Plaintiff alleged that, in doing so, ALIC ignored the recommendation from Settlement Class Members' oncologists and generally accepted medical standards that PBT is an established, effective, and medically appropriate treatment of cancer. On April 28, 2021, the Plaintiff Lemmerman was added as a Plaintiff in a Second Amended Complaint. The Parties negotiated an excellent Settlement that provides Settlement Class Members ample relief for the damages alleged. The Settlement makes available $3,408,000 to the Settlement Class Members for the payment of Settlement Claims. Settlement Class Members who filed valid claims are entitled to reimbursement of up to $48,000 for proton beam radiation ("PBT") for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Aetna offers a variety of health insurance plans. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a4as9Q at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephanie A. Casey, Esq. Sabrina Saieh, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 E-mail: scasey@colson.com sabrina@colson.com – and – - and - Robert Neary, Esq. Harley S. Tropin, Esq. Maria D. Garcia, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON, LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 Facsimile: (305) 372-3508 E-mail: hst@kttlaw.com mgarcia@kttlaw.com rn@kttlaw.com AG-PRO LLC: Employee Class Wins Conditional Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN LIOCES, v. AG-PRO, LLC and AG-PRO OHIO, LLC, Case No. 7:25-cv-00009-WLS (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge W. Louis Sands, Sr. entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for conditional certification. The Court conditionally certifies the following class: "current and former employees of Defendants who: (a) worked in the position of Equipment Sales, Equipment Sales – Construction Sales, Equipment Sales – Inside Sales, Equipment Sales – Outside Sales, Export Sales, or Internet Sales at any time between the date three years prior to the date the Court issues an order granting conditional certification (the maximum statute of limitations under 29 U.S.C. section 255) and the present; (b) primarily made sales inside one of Defendants’ stores; and (c) received commissions and/or incentives that did not comprise more than half of their total pay in any calendar year during the three-year time period." Should the need to expand the class become apparent with the benefit of further discovery, the Plaintiffs may move to conditionally certify additional categories of employees, if justified. The Plaintiff has established a reasonable basis for his claim and that others are similarly situated. Because at least nine other individuals have already opted in, the Plaintiff has demonstrated that others wish to opt in at this stage. The Plaintiff meets the requirements for conditional certification. The Plaintiff Lioces alleges that the Defendants violated the FLSA by wrongfully classifying Plaintiff and other similarly-situated individuals (salespeople) as exempt from overtime pay. Ag-Pro is a privately-owned John Deere dealership in North America. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k4CE3Z at no extra charge.[CC] ALDI INC: Faces Rusia Suit Over Racial Discrimination, Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------------ JANICE F. RUSIA, Plaintiff v. ALDI INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12803 (N.D. Ill., October 20, 2025) is an action against the Defendant under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 for Defendant's discrimination of the Plaintiff in the workplace on the basis of her race and national origin, and for retaliating against her for engaging in protected activity. According to the complaint, the Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her race by initially denying her a promotion to store manager in 2023. The Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for complaining of race discrimination when it terminated her employment without legitimate cause or justification, says the suit. As a result of Defendant's actions, the Plaintiff has suffered lost wages, other economic losses, and emotional distress. The Plaintiff began her employment with Defendant in May 2017 with her most recent position being store manager. Aldi Inc. operates as a supermarket. The Company offers groceries, meat, fresh produce, wine, beer, beverages, and other home products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael T. Smith, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL T. SMITH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 3030 Warrenville Road, Suite 450-42 Lisle, IL 60532 Telephone: (847) 450-1103 Facsimile: (847) 895-0626 E-mail: Msmith39950@aol.com Msmithlaw123@gmail.com ALL SEASON: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Tympel Due April 20, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYMPEL v. ALL SEASON SOLAR LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-09296 (D.N.J., Filed Sept. 19, 2024), the Hon. Judge Christine P. O'Hearn entered an order that: (1) Counsel for the Defendant shall confer further with the client and any vendor to produce the lead files and to produce the consent records in an accessible and workable format; (2) The parties shall meet and confer and agree on appropriate vendor names to be used in the ESI search. The Court has found that the term "consent" does not create an undue burden and is an appropriate ESI search term; (3) The deadline for plaintiff's motion for class certification is April 20, 2026; (4) The deadline to file a motion to amend the pleadings or add parties is moved to December 12, 2025; (5) There will be an In-person settlement conference on Dec. 5, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. to end no later than 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 3C. Clients with full settlement authority must personally appear. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. AllSeason designs and installs solar photovoltaic systems.[CC] ALLIED ACCOUNTANTS: Mott Seeks Leave to Conduct Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM MOTT, v. ALLIED ACCOUNTANTS, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00299-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to conduct class certification and damages discovery. The Plaintiff moves the Court for leave to conduct class certification and damages related discovery against the Defendant for its violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The Defendant is a professional public accounting firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G2rVZq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Love, Esq. LOVE CONSUMER LAW 2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Telephone: (404) 855-3600 E-mail: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com - and - Max S. Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street, #1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (267) 587-6240 Facsimile: (215) 689-0875 E-mail: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com ALPHABET INC: Plaintiffs Can Remove Incorrectly Filed Class Docs ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J. L., et al., v. Alphabet Inc. et al. (re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation), Case No. 5:23-cv-03440-EKL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lee entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to remove incorrectly filed documents. The Clerk of the Court is directed to remove from the docket Dkt. Nos. 249, motion to certify class (Redacted) filed by consolidated Plaintiffs, and 249-1, the Plaintiffs' proposed trial plan. The Court will consider Dkt. Nos. 251, motion to certify class (Redacted) filed by Consolidated Plaintiffs, and 251-1, the Plaintiffs' proposed trial plan (Redacted), to be the correct versions of the redacted class certification brief and the Plaintiffs' proposed trial plan. Alphabet is a holding company, which engages in the business of acquisition and operation of different companies. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gxnXV9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. Anne K. Davis, Esq. Joshua D. Samra, Esq. Gregory S. Mullens, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 1330 Broadway, Suite 630 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 445-4003 E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com adavis@bfalaw.com jsamra@bfalaw.com gmullens@bfalaw.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. Christopher K.L. Young, Esq. Elissa A. Buchanan, Esq. Evan A. Creutz, Esq. Aaron Cera, Esq. Louis Kessler, Esq. Alexander Y. Zeng, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1505 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com cyoung@saverilawfirm.com eabuchanan@saverilawfirm.com ecreutz@saverilawfirm.com acera@saverilawfirm.com lkessler@saverilawfirm.com azeng@saverilawfirm.com ALPHABET INC: Plaintiffs Seek Rule 23 Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J. L., et al., v. Alphabet, Inc., et al. (re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation), Case No. 5:23-cv-03440-EKL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Feb. 4, 2026, will move the Court for certification of the following Classes pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), 23(c)(4), and 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A. Books Class Books Class: "All legal or beneficial owners of registered copyrights for any work possessing an International Standard Book Number (ISBN) which Google downloaded and/or ingested to develop its GLaM, LaMDA, PaLM, ULM/PaLM 2, Imagen, or Gemini base models ("At-Issue Models") or their descendants." For purposes of this definition, copyrighted works are limited to those registered with the United States Copyright Office within five years of the work’s publication before being trained on by Google, or within three months of publication. Subclass: "All legal or beneficial owners of a registered copyright for any work possessing an ISBN, which Google acquired and was used by Google to develop its At-Issue Models or their descendants." For purposes of this definition, copyrighted works are limited to those registered with the United States Copyright Office within five years of the work’s publication before being trained on by Google, or within three months of publication. Subclass: "All legal or beneficial owners of a registered copyright for any work possessing an ISBN, which Google acquired and was used by Google to develop its At-Issue Models or their descendants." For purposes of this definition, these copyrighted works are limited to those registered with the United States Copyright Office within five years of the work’s publication before being trained on by Google, or within three months of publication. Pirated Books Subclass: "All legal or beneficial owners of a registered copyright for any work possessing an ISBN, that reflect URL provenance from Shadow Libraries, used by Google to develop its At-Issue Models or their descendants." For purposes of this definition, these copyrighted works are limited to those registered with the United States Copyright Office within five years of the work’s publication before being trained on by Google, or within three months of publication. B. Images Class Images Class: "All legal or beneficial owners of a registered copyright for any two-dimensional image, drawing, painting, photograph, whether analog or digital, used by Google to develop its Imagen and Gemini base models or their descendants." For purposes of this definition, these copyrighted works are limited to those registered with the United States Copyright Office within five years of the work’s publication before being trained on by Google, or within three months of publication. In the alternative, the Plaintiffs seek to certify a class pursuant to 23(c)(4). The issues Plaintiffs seek to certify include the elements of the copyright claim. Excluded from the Class and Subclasses are the works of any legal or beneficial owners of registered copyrighted works that are the subject of express and restricted license agreements with Google permitting it to use those works with respect to Google's "artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies" products and services. Also excluded are Defendant Google LLC; any of Google's co-conspirators; any of Google's parent companies, subsidiaries, and affiliates, including but not limited to Alphabet; any of Google's and its parents' officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, affiliates, or agents; and the judges and chambers staff in this case, as well as members of their immediate families. The Plaintiffs request that the Court appoint them as Class representatives; Joseph R. Saveri of Joseph Saveri Law Firm, LLP and Lesley E. Weaver of Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP as Co-Lead Counsel, with Brian Clark of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, and Ryan Clarkson of the Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. as Class Counsel. Alphabet is a holding company, which engages in the business of acquisition and operation of different companies. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=abGr5a at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. Anne K. Davis, Esq. Joshua D. Samra, Esq. Gregory S. Mullens, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 1330 Broadway, Suite 630 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 445-4003 E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com adavis@bfalaw.com jsamra@bfalaw.com gmullens@bfalaw.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. Christopher K.L. Young, Esq. Elissa A. Buchanan, Esq. Evan A. Creutz, Esq. Aaron Cera, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1505 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com cyoung@saverilawfirm.com eabuchanan@saverilawfirm.com ecreutz@saverilawfirm.com acera@saverilawfirm.com - and - Brian D. Clark, Esq. Laura M. Matson, Esq. Arielle S. Wagner, Esq. Consuela Abotsi-Kowu, Esq. Stephen J. Teti, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: bdclark@locklaw.com lmmatson@locklaw.com aswagner@locklaw.com cmabotsi-kowo@locklaw.com sjteti@locklaw.com - and - Matthew Butterick, Esq. BUTTERICK LAW 1920 Hillhurst Avenue, #406 Los Angeles, CA 90027 Telephone: (323) 968-2632 E-mail: mb@buttericklaw.com - and - Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Yana Hart, Esq. Mark I. Richards, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com mrichards@clarksonlawfirm.com AMAZON RETAIL: Class Cert Filing in Chicas Suit Due August 3, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jonathan Chicas et al., v. Amazon Retail LLC et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-10306-FMO-SSC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order that: 1. The joint stipulation to modify scheduling order is granted. 2. All fact discovery shall be completed no later than Feb. 6, 2026. 3. All expert discovery shall be completed by July 1, 2026. The parties must serve their Initial Expert Witness Disclosures no later than April 30, 2026. Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosures shall be served no later than June 1, 2026. 4. The parties shall complete their settlement conference before a private mediator no later than Feb. 6, 2026. 5. Any motion for class certification shall be filed no later than Aug. 3, 2026, and noticed for hearing regularly under the Local Rules. Any untimely or non-conforming motion will be denied. The motion for class certification shall comply with the requirements set forth in the Court's Order Re: motions for class certification issued on June 18, 2025. 6. The court will set dates and deadlines for summary judgment, trial, the pretrial conference, and the parties' pretrial filings after the resolution of the motion for class certification Amazon is a subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc., that is responsible for many of Amazon's core retail operations. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HJAXeR at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to April 20, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIA HECK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC. and AUDIBLE, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01219-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadlines set by this Court by its Scheduling Order Regarding Discovery and Class Certification, dated March 18, 2025, by approximately four months as follows. Deadline to complete discovery on class Apr. 1, 2026 Certification: Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion for Apr. 20, 2026 class certification and expert reports: Deadline for the Defendants to file Jun. 17, 2026 rebuttal expert reports: Close of expert discovery and deadline to July 20, 2026 file reply expert reports: Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DNgFiT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com rsolomon@tousley.com - and - Sue J. Nam, Esq. Kate J. Stoia, Esq. Charles D. Moore, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 E-mail: snam@reesellp.com kstoia@reesellp.com cmoore@reesellp.com The Defendants are represented by: Brian D. Buckley, Esq. Jedediah Wakefield, Esq. Molly Melcher, Esq. Charles E. Moulins, Esq. Justine A. Vendermel, Esq. Kara L. Grandin, Esq. Esther D. Galanv FENWICK & WEST LLP 401 Union Street, Fifth Floor Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 389-3410 E-mail: bbuckley@fenwick.com jwakefield@fenwick.com mmelcher@fenwick.com cmoulins@fenwick.com justine.vendermel@fenwick.com kgrandin@fenwick.com egalan@fenwick.com AMAZON.COM INC: Filing for Class Cert in Antitrust Suit Due Dec. 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit Re Amazon.com, Inc. eBook Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00351-GHW-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Figueredo entered an order the following amended schedule for class certification briefing and class expert deadlines: Event Deadline The Plaintiffs' class certification Dec. 5, 2025 motion: Amazon's class certification opposition: Feb. 18, 2026 The Plaintiffs' class certification reply: April 3, 2026 Close of fact discovery: June 5, 2026 Plaintiffs' expert reports: July 6, 2026 Amazon's expert reports: Sept. 4, 2026 Close of expert discovery (including Oct. , 2026 all depositions): Amazon.com is a global technology company primarily involved in the sale of a range of products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2rgXZR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Nathan Emmons, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com nathane@hbsslaw.com - and - Joseph M. Vanek, Esq. Paul E. Slater, Esq. Eamon P. Kelly, Esq. Alberto Rodriquez, Esq. Phillip F. Cramer, Esq. James Almon, Esq. SPERLING & SLATER, LLC 55 W. Monroe Street, 32nd Floor Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 641-3200 Facsimile: (312) 641-6492 E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com pes@sperling-law.com ekelly@sperling-law.com arodriquez@sperling-law.com pcramer@sperling-law.com jalmon@sperling-law.com The Defendant is represented by: John E. Schmidtlein, Esq. Jonathan B. Pitt, Esq. Carl R. Metz, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 680 Maine Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: (202) 434-5000 Facsimile: (202) 434-5029 E-mail: JSchmidtlein@wc.com JPitt@wc.com CMetz@wc.com AMAZON.COM INC: Wilson Bid on Data Production Post–Class Cert OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion regarding Walmart data production post–class certification The Plaintiffs bring the above-captioned action against Amazon.com, Inc., as a putative class action on behalf of all persons "who, on or after March 19, 2016, purchased from a third-party seller on the Walmart or eBay online retail marketplaces in the United States one or more new, physical products concurrently offered for sale by Amazon's third-party sellers on Amazon Marketplace and monitored by Amazon as part of its competitive price monitoring." The Plaintiffs and Walmart seek leave of Court to defer any dispute concerning whether, and to what extent, Walmart must produce additional transaction-level sales data in response to Plaintiffs' subpoena until 30 days after the Court issues its ruling on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6ymmo6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Kelly Fan, Esq. Anne F. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com annej@hbsslaw.com kellyf@hbsslaw.com - and - Zina G. Bash, Esq. Jessica Beringer, Esq. Shane Kelly, Esq. Alex Dravillas, Esq. Roseann Romano, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500 Austin, TX, 78701 Telephone: (512) 690-0990 E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com ajd@kellerpostman.com roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com Attorneys for Walmart, Inc., are: Tyler Farmer, Esq. Ariel A. Martinez, Esq. MARTINEZ & FARMER LLP 4020 East Madison St., Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98112 Telephone: (206) 208-2270 E-mail: tyler@mfseattle.com ariel@msfseattle.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Turner Seeks Leave to File SAC --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZALEKA TURNER, individually, and on behalf of all employees similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company f.k.a. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-00132-TJH-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Nov. 17, 2025, will move the Court for an Order granting leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint 1) removes the Plaintiff Bailey as a named Plaintiff; 2) removes four of the Counts that were previously included in the prior Complaint; and 3) cures all deficiencies the Court identified related to the Plaintiffs' allegations regarding the overtime and meal and rest break violations. Thus, pursuant to the proposed amendment, the Plaintiff Turner would continue to pursue overtime claims, meal and rest break claims, and itemized wage statement claims on her own behalf and on behalf of a class of similar situated Amazon employees in California pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. The result of the proposed amendment is that the Plaintiff Turner would continue to pursue classwide relief for unpaid overtime, unpaid meal and rest breaks, and for Amazon’s failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements. Amazon.com provides e-commerce services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=44bPz6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Won Class Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAONISSA WON, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02867-NGG-LKE (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nicholas Garaufis entered an order granting Amazon's motion for reconsideration and vacating in part its August Order. Accordingly, this case is dismissed without prejudice. The court agrees with Amazon on two grounds. First, the new periods of leave that Won now seeks to introduce are not properly before the court. Second, her lack of standing necessitates this case's dismissal. Amazon.com provides e-commerce services. A copy of the Court's memorandum & order dated Oct. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kA3mI0 at no extra charge.[CC] ANN ARBOR, MI: Class Settlement in Yannotti Suit Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN ANTHONY YANNOTTI, on behalf of himself and a class of all others similarly situated as described, v. CITY OF ANN ARBOR, Case No. 2:22-cv-12147-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Patti entered a final order granting joint motion for approval, certifying class, granting final approval of class action settlement and permanently enjoining defendant from certain actions. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2), the Court certifies the following Class: "All persons and entities who were subject to the placement of a chalk mark on one or more of the four tires of a vehicle to obtain information to justify the issuance of parking ticket(s) within the territorial limits of Ann Arbor, Michigan between April 3, 2017 and April 23, 2019. " Payment Subclass, defined as: "All persons and entities part of the Class who were, as a matter of policy and customary practice, subject to a parking ticket designated "Over the Legal Time Limit" or "Parked Over Legal Time Limit" enforced through the use of tire chalking within the same territorial and temporal limits." The Court appoints Sean Anthony Yannotti as Class Representative and Philip L. Ellison of Outside Legal Counsel PLC and Matthew E. Gronda of Gronda PLC as Class Counsel. The Court finds they have fairly and adequately represented the interests of the Class and have complied with Rule 23(g). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the City of Ann Arbor, its agents, contractors, and employees are enjoined from placing any chalk, chalk-like, or physical mark upon the tires of any privately owned vehicle within the City limits to obtain information to justify issuance of parking tickets, unless a judicial warrant is first obtained. The Nominal Damages Claim Process established by the Settlement Agreement is approved. Eligible members of the Payment Subclass may obtain $1.00 per covered ticket by submitting a timely Claim Form to the City Treasurer's Office, in paper or electronic form, no later than the deadline set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Court approves the incentive award of $1,000 to Sean Anthony Yannotti as Class Representative, to be paid by Defendant consistent with the Settlement Agreement. Ann Arbor is a city in Washtenaw County, Michigan, United States, of which it is the county seat. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W1k19w at no extra charge.[CC] APPLE INC: Federal Judge Decertifies Apple App Store Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that a federal judge decertified on Monday, October 27, a class action by tens of millions of Apple customers who accused the company of monopolizing the market for iPhone apps by banning purchases outside its App Store, leading to higher prices. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, reversed her February 2024 class certification ruling, which let Apple account holders who spent $10 or more on app or in-app content within the last 17 years sue as a group. In decertifying the class, Rogers said the plaintiffs failed to provide a model "capable of reliably showing classwide injury and damages in one stroke" by matching Apple accounts to consumers, while limiting the number of "unharmed" consumers in the class. She ruled after an expert hired by Cupertino, California-based Apple found "alarming" errors in the plaintiffs' model. These included one that named plaintiff Robert Pepper and supposed claimant "Rob Pepper" were different people despite sharing home addresses and credit card information. They also included the lumping together of more than 40,000 payment records for people whose first name was "Kim," but who otherwise had nothing in common. DISAPPOINTED PLAINTIFFS TO REVIEW NEXT STEPS Mark Rifkin, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in an email "we are of course disappointed" with the decision, and are reviewing their next legal steps to protect consumers "harmed by Apple's unlawful App Store monopoly." Apple said it was pleased with the decision, and that it invests "significantly" to make the App Store "a safe and trusted place for users to discover apps and a great business opportunity for developers." Class actions can result in greater recoveries at less cost than if plaintiffs sue individually. The plaintiffs said Apple's monopoly included charging excessive commissions to app developers, which would be passed on to consumers through higher prices to download apps or make in-app purchases. Lawyers for the plaintiffs had estimated that classwide damages could total billions of dollars. The lawsuit began in December 2011, and the class had covered users of iOS-powered devices since July 10, 2008. The case is In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 11-06714. [GN] ARANDELL CORP: Must File Class Cert Response by Jan. 23, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARANDELL CORPORATION v. XCEL ENERGY INC., Case No. 3:07-cv-00076 (W.D. Wisc., Filed Feb. 9, 2007), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order The only deadlines in place are those related to briefing class certification issues, so a short stay will not derail the case. The motion is granted, and all deadlines are struck. But the court does not grant indefinite stays, so the deadlines are reset as follows: a flow chart or other guide identifying the relevant expert evidence is due Nov. 21. The Plaintiffs' brief on the predominance issue is due Dec. 19, 2025; Defendants' response is due Jan. 23, 2026; and Plaintiffs' reply is due February 6, 2026. The court will strike these deadlines if the parties file a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement or notify the court that they have reached a settlement. The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute. Xcel is a U.S. regulated electric utility and natural gas delivery company.[CC] ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Fact Discovery Due April 3, 2026 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA FURMAN, v. ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01575-DJC-DMC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Calabretta entered a scheduling order as follows: -- All fact discovery shall be completed1 no later than Apr. 3, 2026. -- The parties shall disclose initial experts and produce reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than Oct. 9, 2026. -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, shall be filed on or before May 29, 2026 and shall be noticed for hearing before Judge Calabretta no later than July 9m 2026 at 1:30 p.m. All dispositive motions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications, shall be filed on or before Feb. 12, 2027 and shall be noticed for hearing before Judge Calabretta no later than Apr. 1, 2027 at 1:30 p.m. -- The final pretrial conference is set for July 15, 2027 at 1:30 p.m. -- A jury trial is set for Sept. 13, 2027 at 8:30 a.m. Arizona is a producer of many flavors of iced tea, juice cocktails, and energy drinks. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kcvV8U at no extra charge.[CC] AVEANNA HEALTHCARE: Powell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aveanna Healthcare AS, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Karen Powell, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aveanna Healthcare AS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Does 1-100, Case No. 25CV025252 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 21, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Aveanna Healthcare LLC -- https://www.aveanna.com/ -- provides health care services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Treglio, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com AZEK GROUP LLC: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The AZEK Group LLC d/b/a TimberTech, Case No. 0:25-cv-04059 (D. Minn., Oct. 21, 2025), is brought arising because the Defendant's Website (www.timbertech.com) is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"). As a consequence of Plaintiffs experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on their behalf, Plaintiffs found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiffs full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiffs would like to, intend to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiffs and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are and have been legally blind and are therefore disabled. The Defendant offers decking materials for sale including, but not limited to, deck framing, flooring, railings, dock materials, porch accessories, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com B-TWO OPERATIONS: Stewart Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against B-Two Operations Ltd. The case is styled as Wendie Stewart, individually, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. B-Two Operations Ltd. doing business as: SpinBlitz, Case No. 1:25-cv-12825 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 21, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. B-Two Operations Ltd. doing business as SpinBlitz -- https://www.spinblitz.com/ -- offers free spins social casino for a variety of online slots, scratch-offs, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 20900 Ne 30th Avenue, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com BAKER COUNTY, OR: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Feb. 9, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BAKER v. Baker County, Case No. 2:24-cv-01503 (D. Or., Filed Sept. 7, 2024), the Hon. Judge Karin J. Immergut entered an order adopting the case scheduling outlined by the parties with a modification as to the reply in support of class certification motion deadline as follows: -- The deadline to file motions to compel fact discovery is now December 19, 2025. -- The deadline to amend pleadings or join parties is January 9, 2026. -- Fact discovery is to be completed by January 9, 2025. -- Initial expert disclosures are due by February 9, 2026. -- Rebuttal expert disclosures are due by March 13, 2026. -- The deadline to file a class certification motion is February 9, 2026. -- The deadline to respond is March 13, 2026, and any reply in support of the class certification motion is due April 13, 2026. -- The last date to file any motion to compel expert discovery is March 20, 2026. -- Expert discovery is to be completed by April 3, 2026. -- Joint Statement of Agreed and Disputed Facts is due on April 17, 2026. -- Joint ADR Report and any dispositive motions are due no later than May 29, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act. Baker is one of the 36 counties in the U.S. state of Oregon.[CC] BAR-S FOODS CO: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bar-S Foods Co. The case is styled as Johnny Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Bar-S Foods Co., Case No. 25STCV30782 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 21, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Bar-S Foods -- https://www.bar-s.com/ -- offers quality hot dogs, sausages, bacon, and lunch meats at affordable prices--trusted by families and retailers across the USA.[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 BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Seeks Extension of Class Cert Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM MARK CUMALANDER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF TENNESSEE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00176-TRM-CHS (E.D. Tenn.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion for enlargement of class certification scheduling order deadlines: Event Deadline Disclosure of any expert testimony in Dec. 15, 2025 accordance with Rules 26(a)(2)(B) and 26(a)(2)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as it relates to class issues: Disclosure of rebuttal expert testimony Jan. 23, 2026 on class issues: All discovery related to class certification Feb. 20, 2026 issues shall be completed: The Plaintiff's motion for class March 13, 2026 certification shall be filed: The Defendant's response shall be filed: April 13, 2026 The Plaintiff's reply: April 27, 2026 Pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, Inc. (“BCBST”) files this unopposed motion for a one month enlargement of the deadlines set forth in the Court’s Amended Class Certification Scheduling Order (Dkt. 86) to allow the parties to complete the deposition of the named plaintiff, William Mark Cumalander, and other necessary class discovery. BCBST requests that these deadlines be extended by approximately one month to allow for the completion of the deposition of the named plaintiff, which is currently scheduled for mid-November 2025, and the incorporation of that testimony into the parties’ respective expert reports. BlueCross is a health benefit plan company in Tennessee. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DmLiHm at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Marc. H. Harwell, Esq. HARWELL & HURST PLLC 832 Georgia Avenue, Suite 510 Chattanooga, TN 37402 Telephone: (423) 756-7333 E-mail: marc@harwelllawgroup.com - and - Gwendolyn C. Payton, Esq. Stephanie N. Bedard, Esq. KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP 1420 Fifth Ave., Suite 3700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 626-7714 E-mail: gpayton@ktslaw.com sbedard@ktslaw.com BROADMARK REALTY: Brian Grant Appointed as Lead Plaintiff --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN L. GRANT et al., v. BROADMARK REALTY CAPITAL INC. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01013-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge King entered an order granting Dr. Grant's motion for appointment of lead plaintiff and counsel. The Court appoints Brian Grant as lead Plaintiff, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Plaintiffs' lead counsel, and Keller Rohrback L.L.P. as Plaintiffs' liaison counsel. Dr. Grant contends that he is an adequate representative of the class "because his interests are aligned with the putative class," he "retained competent and experienced counsel to investigate the claims at issue, file the initial complaint in this matter, and litigate this case," and his "substantial financial stake provides the requisite interest to ensure vigorous advocacy." The Court agrees with Dr. Grant. In addition, no one has opposed this motion, and no other candidate has come forward or rebutted the presumption that Dr. Grant is the most adequate plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court finds that Dr. Grant is the most adequate plaintiff, and it appoints him lead plaintiff. On May 28, 2025, the Plaintiff Brian Grant, individually and as trustee of the Brian L. Grant Living Trust, and MCN Holdings LLC (collectively, "Dr. Grant"), filed this action on behalf of himself and a putative class of all holders of common stock of Broadmark Realty Capital Inc. as of the record date of the May 2023 merger of Broadmark and Ready Capital Corporation. The complaint asserts claims under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, against Broadmark and certain of its former officers and directors, Ready Capital and certain of its current and former executive officers and directors, and Ready Capital’s affiliated investment manager. Id. Broadmark is a real estate investment trust (REIT) that specializes in providing short-term financing solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fEeUoD at no extra charge.[CC] BROOKLYN BEDDING: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Feb. 3, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BAASIL KHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BROOKLYN BEDDING LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-06271-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order setting the following case schedule through class certification: Case Event Deadline Close of class certification discovery: Jan. 20, 2026 Motion for class certification + Feb. 3, 2026 Plaintiff's disclosure of experts and expert reports Class certification opposition + Mar. 17, 2026 Defendant's disclosure of experts and expert reports Class certification reply + Plaintiff's April 14, 2026 rebuttal expert reports Class certification hearing: May 5, 2026 Brooklyn operates as a home furnishing store. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=znbTr3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Franzini, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: simon@dovel.com grace@dovel.com The Defendant is represented by: Ana Tagvoryan, Esq. Harrison Brown, Esq. Erica R. Graves, Esq. Victor Sandoval, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East | 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 239-3400 Facsimile: (424) 239-3434 E-mail: ana.tagvoryan@blankrome.com harrison.brown@blankrome.com erica.graves@blankrome.com Victor.sandoval@blankrome.com CALTON & ASSOCIATES: Seeks to Dismiss Kreienkamp Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Suzanne Kreienkamp, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Calton & Associates, Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-01765-JLB-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order dismissing the action in its entirety, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6), because Suzanne Kreienkamp ("Plaintiff") fails to satisfy the Article III standing requirements and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Alternatively, Calton moves for an order striking the putative class allegations, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), because the putative class definition is overly broad, includes uninjured putative class members that lack Article III standing, and fails to satisfy the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 requirements. The Plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit against Calton after she was allegedly notified of a data security incident that occurred on or around June 2025. Calton is a nationwide independent broker dealer and investment advisory firm. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UUH7GJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Sander R. Weiner, Esq. Christopher J. Seusing, Esq. Sean V. Patel, Esq. WOOD, SMITH, HENNING & BERMAN LLP 1501 S. Church Avenue, Suite 200 Tampa, FL 33629 Telephone: (813) 422-6910 Facsimile: (813) 425-6983 E-mail: sweiner@wshblaw.com CAPITAL ONE: Bid for Class Certification Withdrawn -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: Capital One Financial Corporation, Affiliate Marketing Litigation, Case No. 1:25-cv-00023-AJT-WBP (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Trenga entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Withdraw the Motion for Class Certification. Capital is an American bank holding company, specializing in credit cards, auto loans, banking, and savings accounts. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1FMwx8 at no extra charge.[CC] CAPITAL ONE: Hoard Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AZLYNNE HOARD and CHIQUITA PLENTY, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Case No. 3:24-cv-01133-JLS-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) extending the deadline to file the Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for class certification by 21 days, from Oct. 27, 2025 to Nov. 17, 2025, and (2) granting the Plaintiffs' leave to file a reply in support of class certification of up to fifteen pages. Capital offers financial products and services such as personal and business checking, savings accounts. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=odFstv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, Ste. 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com jkaliel@kalielpllc.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Adam Schwartzbaum, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park East, Ste. 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com adam@edelsberglaw.com - and - Edwin E. Elliott, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: edwine@shamisgentile.com CARDONE CAPITAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Pino Due Dec. 10 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Luis Pino v. Cardone Capital, LLC et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-08499-JFW-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Walter entered an order approving joint stipulation setting a briefing schedule for lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification. (1) The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed on or before Dec. 10, 2025; (2) The Defendants' opposition shall be filed on or before Jan. 14, 2026; and (3) The Plaintiff's reply shall be filed on or before Feb. 18, 2026. The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be on March 9, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. Cardone is a real estate investment company that acquires and manages income-producing properties. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=38seBg at no extra charge.[CC] CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Class Cert. Bid in Llewellyn Due April 3, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN LLEWELLYN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01316-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lasnik entered an order setting trial date and related dates: Trial date: Jan. 4, 2027 Deadline for joining additional parties: Dec. 15, 2025 Motion for Class Certification filed by April 3, 2026 and noted on the Court's calendar for no earlier than 28 days after filing: Deadline for amending pleadings: May 11, 2026 Expert Disclosures/Reports under July 8, 2026 FRCP 26(a)(2) due: Discovery completed by: Sept. 8, 2026 Settlement conference held no later than: Aug. 21, 2026 Cellco provides wireless voice and data services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EwP6BX at no extra charge.[CC] CHICAGO, IL: Costanzo Sues for Discrimination and Harassment ------------------------------------------------------------ CARRIE COSTANZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12716 (N.D. Ill., October 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for alleged discriminatory, harassment, and retaliatory conduct towards Plaintiff and others similarly situated in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Costanzo has risen through the ranks of the Chicago Police Department to become a Sergeant. But the CPD required Plaintiff Costanzo to work for several years under Lieutenant Godfrey Cronin, who sexually harassed and assaulted her. He called her "hot," "sexy," and "the horniest chick in the unit," including in public work settings, and pressured her to engage in sexual conduct with other police officers. Despite the CPD's well-known "code of silence," under which CPD officers close ranks to protect wrongdoers on the force, Costanzo made the brave decision to file an internal complaint register against Plaintiff Cronin, risking retaliation and escalating discrimination and harassment. Plaintiff Costanzo also sought to vindicate her statutory rights to be free of stalking and of workplace discrimination. In October 2020, she filed a lawsuit seeking an order of protection against Cronin and in 2021, filed a charge of discrimination and retaliation with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission and the Illinois Department of Human Rights. Unbeknownst to her, however, the City maintained an unlawful policy of pausing internal investigations into alleged workplace misconduct when an employee also reported the same wrongdoing in a lawsuit or to a state or federal agency, says the suit. The City's policy of suspending internal investigations when an employee exercises her constitutional rights to report misconduct in court and to state and federal agencies violates its officers' rights under the First Amendment, as incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment, and has caused significant harm to Costanzo, the suit alleges. City of Chicago is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois. Among its operating departments is the Chicago Police Department.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Suzanne E. Bish, Esq. George S. Robot, Esq. STOWELL & FRIEDMAN, LTD. 303 W. Madison Street, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 431-0888 E-mail: lfriedman@sfltd.com sbish@sfltd.com grobot@sfltd.com CMS ENERGY: Must Respond to Class Cert Bid by Jan. 23, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NewPage Wisconsin System Inc. v. CMS Energy Resource Management Company, et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00240 (W.D. Wisc., Filed April 21, 2009), the Court entered an order on motion to vacate: The parties move to strike pending deadlines "in light of productive settlement negotiations." The only deadlines in place are those related to briefing class certification issues, so a short stay will not derail the case. The motion is granted, and all deadlines are struck. But the court does not grant indefinite stays, so the deadlines are reset as follows: a flow chart or other guide identifying the relevant expert evidence is due Nov. 21, 2025; plaintiffs' brief on the predominance issue is due Dec. 19, 2025; defendants' response is due Jan. 23, 2026; plaintiffs' reply is due Feb. 6, 2026. The court will strike these deadlines if the parties file a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement or notify the court that they have reached a settlement. The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract. CMS offers electric and natural gas distribution.[CC] COMFORTWEAR COLLECTIONS: Deadline to File Class Cert Extended ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ETHAN RADVANSKY, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. COMFORTWEAR COLLECTIONS INTERNATIONAL INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02810-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. entered an order on the Plaintiff's motion for alternate service and for an extension of time to file a class certification motion: 1. The Plaintiff is authorized to effect service of the Summons and Complaint upon Defendant Comfortwear Collections International Inc. by the alternative means described in the Motion, including by e-mail and by certified mail to the Registered Agent listed with the California Secretary of State. 2. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification is extended until a date to be set forth in the Court's Scheduling Order following a Rule 26(f) conference and submission of a joint proposed schedule by the parties. Comfortwear specializes in all kinds of functional apparels. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C8Ed6D at no extra charge.[CC] COMPASS WASHINGTON: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Dec. 21, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Murch v. Compass Washington, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01039 (D. Or., Filed June 17, 2025), the Hon. Judge Stacie F. Beckerman entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Parties are to seek leave to amend pleadings or add any additional parties or claims by Dec. 22, 2025. -- Initial expert disclosures for purposes of class certification due by Aug. 17, 2026. -- Rebuttal expert disclosures for purposes of class certification due by Sept. 21, 2026. -- Motion for class certification to be filed by Dec. 21, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Defendant operates a residential real estate brokerage in the United States.[CC] CONSOL PENNSYLVANIA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 11, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT MOORE, and FRANK R. FEREZA, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CONSOL PENNSYLVANIA COAL COMPANY LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01991-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge entered an order -- Fact discovery shall close on Feb. 5, 2026. -- Identification of rebuttal experts: Feb. 17, 2026 -- Rebuttal experts reports: April 16, 2026 -- Expert discovery shall close on: May 21, 2026 -- Motion for class certification is due by: June 11, 2026 -- Brief in opposition is due by: July 13, 2026 -- Reply brief is due by: July 24, 2026 Consol explores and produces natural oil and gas. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ufo1u4 at no extra charge.[CC] CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 22, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN MARTINEZ, v. CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL SERVICE, L.L.C. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-07457-MWC-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered civil trial order as follows: Last date to hear motion to amend Dec. 5, 2025 pleadings or add parties: Last date to file class certification Apr. 22, 2026 motion: Fact discovery cut-off: Oct. 30, 2026 Expert discovery cut-off: Dec. 4, 2026 Last date to hear motions: Jan. 22, 2027 Trial: Apr. 26, 2027 Final pretrial conference, hearing on Apr. 16, 2027 motions in limine: Consolidated offers a range of waste collection and recycling solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=anwDbF at no extra charge.[CC] CORKTOWN TAPHOUSE: Faces Sanford Suit Over Withheld Tips -------------------------------------------------------- Martell Sanford, an individual, on behalf of himself and those similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. Corktown Taphouse, Inc., a Domestic Profit Corporation, 1834 Kitchen, LLC, a Domestic Limited Liability Company, Ronald Moore, an Individual, and Michele Moore, an Individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-13307-GAD-KGA (E.D. Mich., October 20, 2025) is a collective action against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking to recover unlawfully withheld gratuities and all available damages and relief on behalf of Plaintiff and similarly situated employees. The suit arises because Defendants promised to pay Plaintiff both an hourly wage and tips -- but then kept the tips for themselves. Despite assuring Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees that they would share tips and assign Plaintiff regular customer-facing duties, the Defendants withheld those tips once Plaintiff began working, says the suit. The Plaintiff began working for Defendants around November 2024 as a cook. Corktown Taphouse is a Michigan profit corporation engaged in the retail sale of food and craft beer at its Detroit location.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ertis Tereziu, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 150. W Jefferson Ave., Ste. 1400 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 739-1953 E-mail: etereziu@forthepeople.com CORNERSTONE FIRST: Loan Officer Class Wins Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as APRIL SHAKOOR-DELGADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CORNERSTONE FIRST MORTGAGE, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01811-TWR-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Todd W. Robinson entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion and conditionally certifying the proposed class of: "All current and former Loan Officers employed by the Defendant in the United States who were paid on a commission- only basis at any point in the past three years." The Plaintiff shall file an amended proposed notice in compliance with this order and a proposed reminder notice within 30 days of the date of this Order. At this stage, however, the Plaintiff has carried her burden of plausibly alleging that she and the proposed Collective Members are similarly situated in that they "share a similar issue of law or fact material to the disposition of their FLSA claims." On Oct. 9, 2024, the Plaintiff filed her Complaint, alleging that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by (1) failing to pay at least minimum wage in all weeks worked, (2) failing to pay overtime for hours worked in excess of forty hours in any given workweek, and (3) failing to pay all wages free and clear. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a loan officer from Dec. 10, 2021, until Nov. 6, 2023, and then again from Feb. 9, 2024, until at least July 3, 2025. Cornerstone is a full-service mortgage bank. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jiLSyY at no extra charge.[CC] CORNERSTONE FIRST: Must File class Cert Opposition by Nov. 21 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as APRIL SHAKOOR-DELGADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CORNERSTONE FIRST MORTGAGE, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01811-TWR-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Major entered an order denying motion to compel and motion for sanctions as moot and setting briefing schedule: 1. The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding the discovery at issue in the motion to compel in light of District Judge Robinson's Oct. 15, 2025 Order; 2. If the parties are unable to resolve this dispute, the Plaintiff must file a new motion to compel on or before Nov. 14, 2025. 3. The Defendant must file any opposition to this motion on or before Nov. 21, 2025. 4. The Plaintiff may file a reply on or before Dec. 3, 2025. On Sept. 10, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion for Sanctions. In this motion, the Plaintiff is seeking to compel Defendant to provide discovery related to the class action claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). At the time Plaintiff filed this motion, the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims was pending before District Judge Todd W. Robinson. On Oct. 15, 2025, the District Judge Robinson granted the Plaintiff’s motion for conditional class certification and this Court finds that many of the disagreements in the pending motion to compel have now been resolved by District Judge Robinson’s ruling. Cornerstone is a full-service mortgage bank. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3tuhBx at no extra charge.[CC] CREDIT BUREAU: Summary Judgment Reply Briefs Due Nov. 14 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Meyers v. Credit Bureau Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-00141 (D. Neb., Filed April 13, 2020), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Bataillon entered an order granting the parties' Joint Motion to Extend Briefing Deadlines. The deadlines are amended as follows: -- The Plaintiffs' reply brief in support of the Motion for Class Certification is now Oct. 27, 2025. -- Briefs in opposition to Summary Judgment Motions are now due October 29, 2025. -- Reply briefs in support of Summary Judgment Motions are now due Nov. 14, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. Credit provides accounts receivable management solutions and consumer credit products to a wide range of industries.[CC] CRITERION COLLECTION: Settlement Class Cert Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCIS LUCCHESE-SOTO, KEVIN MCGUIRE, MATTHEW WICKHAM, AMITAI HELLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE CRITERION COLLECTION, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07345-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Caproni entered a final order and judgment as follows: -- The Class preliminarily certified by this Court is finally certified, for settlement purposes only, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3). The Settlement Class shall consist of: "All United States residents who (1) were a registered user of, or had a subscription to, the Criterion Channel Service; and (2) watched a pre-recorded video through the Criterion Channel Service from Sept. 27, 2022 through Dec. 27, 2024." Specifically excluded from the Class are: (a) the Defendant, its employees, principals, officers, directors, agents, affiliated entities legal representatives, successors, and assigns; (b) the judges to whom the Action has been or is assigned and any members of their immediate families; and (c) all persons who have filed a timely Request for Exclusion from the Class. -- Requests for Exclusion. The Court finds that only those persons listed in Exhibit H to the Declaration of Patrick M. Passarella of Kroll Settlement Administration LLC In Connection With Final Approval Of Settlement have submitted timely and valid Requests for Exclusion from the Class and are therefore not bound by this Final Order and the accompanying Final Judgment. -- The Court designates Plaintiffs Francis Lucchese Soto, Kevin McGuire, Matthew Wickham, and Amitai Heller as representatives of the Class. The Court appoints the law firms of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as counsel for the Class. -- The Court awards one-third of the Settlement Fund, $1,499,824.42, in attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses to Class Counsel. The Court also awards $2,000 as an incentive award to each Plaintiff. Criterion is an American home-video distribution company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2gBJZd at no extra charge.[CC] CROWDVEST LLC: Joint Status Report in Johnson Due Nov. 19 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johnson v. Crowdvest LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01293 (E.D. Wisc., Filed Oct. 10, 2024), the Hon. Judge J.P. Stadtmueller entered an order that the parties file another joint status report regarding the status of any anticipated motion for class certification and the status of settlement discussions on or before Nov. 19, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Crowdvest is a commercial real estate investment firm.[CC] CRUMBL LLC: Filing for Class Cert. in Watson Due April 3, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA WATSON, and ANGELA KEERS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. CRUMBL LLC, CRUMBL, IP, LLC, CRUMBL FRANCHISING, LLC, and CRUMBL ENTERPRISES, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01770-DJC-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Calabretta entered an order granting stipulation to further modify scheduling order The case deadlines are modified as follows: Event Deadline Expert disclosures: April 3, 2026 Rebuttal expert reports: June 12, 2026 The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: April 3, 2026 The Defendants' opposition to motion for June 12, 2026 class certification: The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion July 10, 2026 for class certification: Close of expert discovery: July 10, 2026 Hearing on motion for class certification: Aug. 13, 2026 Final pretrial conference: April 22, 2027 Jury Trial: June 21, 2027 Crumbl provides bakery products. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=886BSy at no extra charge.[CC] CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Conriquez Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FERNANDO CONRIQUEZ, JACOB MICHAEL BRYANT, and ANTHONY PORTS, individuals, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD U.S., INC., a Missouri corporation; CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; a California corporation; INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC., a California corporation; C&W SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:22-cv-02734-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Dec. 2, 2025 at 10:00 a.m., will move the Court of an order certifying the following classes pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3). Specifically, the Plaintiffs request that the Court: 1. Certify that this action is maintainable as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3); 2. Certify the following Class: "All non-exempt employees of defendants Cushman & Wakefield U.S., Inc. and Cushman & Wakefield of California, Inc. in California during the period of Dec. 29, 2017 through the date of the order granting class certification, and all non- exempt employees of defendant C&W Services, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") in California during the period of Oct. 4, 2022 through the date of the order granting class certification ("Class Period")." 3. Certify the following Subclasses: a. Meal Period Subclass: "All non-exempt employees of the Defendants in California who worked one or more shifts over five hours during the Class Period." b. Second Meal Period Subclass: "All non-exempt employees of Defendants in California who worked one or more shifts over ten hours during the Class Period." c. Rest Break Subclass: "All non-exempt employees of Defendants in California who worked one or more shifts over 3.5 hours during the Class Period." d. Off-the-Clock Subclass: "All non-exempt employees of Defendants in California who worked any off-the-clock time during the Class Period." e. Overtime Rate Subclass: "All non-exempt, non-union employees of Defendants during the Class Period who worked at least one shift over eight hours long or worked over forty hours in a workweek and also earned at least one other form of non-discretionary remuneration (such as shift differentials and other bonuses) during the same pay period." f. Wage Statement Subclass: "All non-exempt employees of Defendants during the Class Period who received a wage statement from the Defendants during the Class Period reflecting incorrect information, including the identity of the employer, the incorrect overtime rate, or failing to indicate the total hours worked." g. Reimbursement Subclass: "All non-exempt employees of the Defendants during the Class Period who incurred necessary business expenses for which they were not reimbursed. 4. In the event that the Court finds the proposed class or any of the subclasses suitable for class treatment, the Plaintiffs also seeks certification of the following derivative claims: Failure to maintain required employment records; Failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees; Failure to furnish accurate, itemized wage statements; and Unfair business practices. 5. Appoint the Plaintiffs Fernando Conriquez, Jacob Michael Bryant, and Anthony Ports as representatives for the proposed classes; and 6. Appoint Matern Law Group, PC, Matthew J. Matern, Joshua D. Boxer, and Kristen B. Doyan, as well as Makarem & Associates APLC, Ronald Makarem, Samuel D. Almon, and Mary Lipscomb as Class Counsel for the proposed classes. Cushman is an American global commercial real estate services firm. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kZHitg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Joshua D. Boxer, Esq. Kristen B. Doyan, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 2101 E. El Segundo Blvd., Suite 403 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-190 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com jboxer@maternlawgroup.com kdoyan@maternlawgroup.com - and - Ronald W. Makarem, Esq. Samuel D. Almon, Esq. Mary Lipscomb, Esq. MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES APLC 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440 Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760 Telephone: (310) 312-0299; Facsimile: (310) 312-0296 E-mail: makarem@law-rm.com almon@law-rm.com lipscomb@law-rm.com CVS CAREMARK: Court Vacates Class Cert Deadline in Hamburger ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hamburger v. CVS CAREMARK et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-03000 (D.D.C., Filed Sept 4, 2025), the Hon. Judge Trevor N. Mcfadden entered an order granting the Plaintiff's request to vacate the deadline to file a Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiff shall file his Motion for Class Certification at a date to be set by the Court. The suit alleges violation of the the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). CVS is the pharmacy benefit management subsidiary of CVS Health.[CC] DANIELLE OUTLAW: Oral Argument Hearing in Flacco Set for Nov. 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER FLACCO, WINTON SINGLETARY v. DANIELLE OUTLAW, CHARLES RAMSEY, RICHARD ROSS, JR., KEVIN BETHEL, MICHAEL ZACCAGNI, PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, ALBERT D'ATTILIO, JOHN STANFORD, JR., CANDI JONES, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Case No. 2:24-cv-04374-MA (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Kearney entered an order setting oral argument hearing not exceeding an hour on the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class on Nov. 3, 2025 beginning at 10:00 A.M. in the Cardinal Room of Upper Dublin High School (second floor), 800 Loch Alsh Ave., Fort Washington, Pennsylvania. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Oemycy at no extra charge.[CC] DEMARINI SPORTS: Duryea Sues Over Deceptive Baseball Bat Ads ------------------------------------------------------------ BRIAN DURYEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEMARINI SPORTS, INC., an Oregon corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00163-TC (D. Utah, October 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and breach of express warranty arising from false advertised material-change claims of its baseball and fastpitch bats. The Defendant sells baseball and fastpitch bats it represents as certified for play under various governing standards. Based on records obtained from Washington State University and Defendant's own marketing, the Plaintiff believes Defendant knowingly pursued regulatory bat certification through the Cosmetic-Change pathway, reserved for appearance-only modifications, while publicly touting those bats as structurally and performance enhanced. The Defendant did not disclose to consumers its selection of the Cosmetic-Change certification pathway and controls the underlying design and certification records. The Defendant continues to market current and future model year bats as both certified and newly enhanced without disclosing when approval rests on a Cosmetic-Change submission, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff intends to purchase certified bats from Defendant again but cannot rely on its performance and certification representations; absent corrective disclosure, future purchases would likely result in additional financial harm. DeMarini Sports, Inc. provides sports products. The Company offers baseball, bats, bags, apparel, and other accessories. Demarini Sports operates worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kennedy D. Nate, Esq. RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER P.C. 36 South State Street, Suite 1400 Post Office Box 45385 Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0385 Telephone: (801) 532-1500 E-mail: knate@rqn.com DISCORD INC: Faces Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Jacqueline Uceta filed a class action lawsuit against Discord Inc. Why: Uceta claims Discord failed to properly safeguard and secure the PII of users affected by a recent data breach. Where: The Discord data breach class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Discord failed to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of users affected by a recent data breach. Plaintiff Jacqueline Uceta claims Discord failed to implement adequate data security measures to prevent the data breach, which allegedly occurred on or about Sept. 20. Roughly 70,000 Discord users had their government IDs, IP addresses, billing info, and other personal information exposed in the data breach. "Despite Discord's duty to safeguard the private information of plaintiff and class members, their private information was compromised when an unauthorized party gained access to Defendant's third-party customer support services and exfiltrated sensitive data stored therein on or about Sept. 20, 2025," the Discord class action lawsuit says. Uceta argues that Discord failed to inform victims of the data breach, which allegedly compromised users' names, government ID images, Discord usernames, emails, limited billing information, IP addresses and messages with customer service agents, until Oct. 3. Uceta wants to represent a nationwide class of individuals in the United States whose personally identifiable information was compromised in the Discord data breach. Discord's actions negligent and reckless, class action claims Uceta claims Discord was negligent and reckless in the way it maintained the personally identifiable information of users affected by the data breach, arguing the company should have been aware of the risks of third-party vulnerabilities and weak access controls. "Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was a known risk to Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the PII from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition," the Discord class action lawsuit says. Uceta claims Discord is guilty of negligence, breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment and of violating the Federal Trade Commission Act. She demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of actual, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for herself and all class members. In other data breach news, a Florida federal judge recently granted final approval of a $20 million settlement resolving claims that a breach involving Fortra's GoAnywhere MFT software exposed the personal information of millions of individuals. Do you believe Discord did enough to protect your personally identifiable information? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Jae K. Kim and Gerald D. Wells III of Lynch Carpenter LLP. The Discord data breach class action lawsuit is Uceta v. Discord Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-08582, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Plaintiffs Seek to File Supplemental Brief ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRYSTAL ROBERTSON, on behalf of herself and her minor child D.R.; ELIZABETH DAGGETT, on behalf of herself and her minor child H.D.; JOANN MCCRAY, on behalf of herself and her minor child J.C.; VERONICA GUERRERO, on behalf of herself and her minor child A.F.; MARCIA CANNON-CLARK AND DAVID CLARK, on behalf of themselves and their minor child B.R.C; and THE ARC OF THE UNITED STATES, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:24-cv-00656-PLF (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order permitting them to file a supplemental brief on class certification. The brief will aid the Court in making a determination as to whether a class should be certified. The Plaintiffs' supplemental brief on class certification bolsters the Plaintiffs' claim that the putative class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River, bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qP1RP4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kaitlin R. Banner, Esq. Chelsea Sullivan, Esq. WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS 700 14th Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 319-1000 E-mail: kaitlin_banner@washlaw.org margaret_hart@washlaw.org chelsea_sullivan@washlaw.org - and - Katherine Zeisel, Esq. Shayna Stern, Esq. CHILDREN'S LAW CENTER 501 3rd St, NW, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 267-4900 E-mail: zeisel@childrenslawcenter.org sstern@childrenslawcenter.org - and - Margaret H. Warner, Esq. Christopher M. Shoemaker, Esq. Eugene I. Goldman, Esq. Theresa M. Babendreier, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 500 North Capitol Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 756-8400 E-mail: egoldman@mwe.com mwarner@mwe.com cshoemaker@mwe.com tbabendreier@mwe.com - and - Shira Wakschlag, Esq. Evan Monod, Esq. THE ARC OF THE UNITED STATES 2000 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 534-3708 E-mail: wakschlag@thearc.org monod@thearc.org DIVIDEND SOLAR: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Oct. 7, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit Re: Dividend Solar Finance, LLC, and Fifth Third Bank Sales and Lending Practices Litigation, Case No. 0:24-md-03128-KMM-DTS (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge David Schultz entered a pretrial scheduling order: Initial Disclosures Deadline: Oct. 21, 2025 The Plaintiff fact sheets: Served: Nov. 15, 2025 Returned: Jan. 2, 2026 Fact discovery completion deadline: July 7, 2027 Expert deadlines Disclosures Plaintiff: Oct. 7, 2026 Defendant: Jan. 19, 2027 Rebuttal reports: Feb. 26, 2027 Class certification motion Oct. 7, 2026 deadline: Second round motions to dismiss Nov. 21, 2025 deadline: Dividend is a solar loan provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CC0uS0 at no extra charge.[CC] DOLLAR TREE: Filing of Amended Complaint Due Nov. 6 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCO WALSH, et al., v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-01601-SVK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Van Keulen entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to transfer and granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss: The Court finds that Dollar Tree has not met its burden to show that the T&C are incorporated into the Privacy Policy or otherwise agreed to by Plaintiffs and has failed to carry its burden to show that the convenience to the Parties and interest of justice factors weight toward transfer. Accordingly, its motion to transfer is denied without prejudice to a showing re actual notice. Furthermore, the Cout GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Dollar Tree's motion to dismiss. The following claims are dismissed: -- The Plaintiffs Yosha and Maldonado's claims are dismissed for improper venue; -- The Plaintiffs' wiretapping claim (Count III) is dismissed with leave to amend; -- The Plaintiffs' contract claims (Counts VII-VIII) are dismissed with leave to amend; -- The Plaintiffs' fraud claim (Count V) is dismissed with leave to amend; and -- The Plaintiffs' trespass claim (Count IX) is dismissed with leave to amend. The Plaintiffs' amended complaint, if any, is due no later than Nov. 6, 2025. No new claims or parties may be added in any such amended complaint. Finally, the Court re-sets the initial case management conference in this case for Jan. 13, 2026 at 9:30am via videoconference. The Plaintiffs' nine causes of action all arise from the same basic allegation: that, despite their clicking the "Reject Advertising Cookies" button on Dollar Tree's website, Dollar Tree nonetheless caused advertising cookies to be placed on the Plaintiffs' computers. Dollar is a discount variety store in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y6AIIm at no extra charge.[CC] DONALD TRUMP: Plaintiffs Must File Replies by Nov. 10 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.G.G., et al., v. DONALD TRUMP et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00766 (D.D.C., Filed March 15, 2025), the Hon. Judge James E. Boasberg entered an order adopting the Parties' Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule as follows: (1) Defendants shall file their Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion for Class Certification by October 31, 2025; and (2) Plaintiffs shall file their Replies by Nov. 10, 2025.[CC] The nature of suit states Civil Rights Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman. DONALD TRUMP: Sanchez Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LIYANARA SANCHEZ, as next friend on behalf of FRENGEL REYES MOTA, et al., Petitioners–Plaintiffs,   J.G.G., et al., Plaintiffs,  v.  DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00766-JEB (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class action and designating undersigned counsel as class counsel. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs move the Court to certify the following class: "All noncitizens removed from the United States and transferred to the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) in El Salvador on March 15 and 16, 2025, pursuant solely to the Presidential Proclamation entitled, "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua." A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xW4Oua at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lee Gelernt, Esq. Daniel Galindo, Esq. Ashley Gorski, Esq. Patrick Toomey, Esq. Sidra Mahfooz, Esq. Omar Jadwat, Esq. Hina Shamsi, Esq. Michael K.T. Tan, Esq. Noelle Smith, Esq. Oscar Sarabia Roman, Esq. My Khanh Ngo, Esq. Spencer Amdur, Esq. Cody Wofsy, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2660 E-mail: lgelernt@aclu.org lgelernt@aclu.org dgalindo@aclu.org agorski@aclu.org ptoomey@aclu.org smahfooz@aclu.org ojadwat@aclu.org hshamsi@aclu.org mtan@aclu.org nsmith@aclu.org osarabia@aclu.org mngo@aclu.org cwofsy@aclu.org samdur@aclu.org - and - Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq. Scott Michelman, Esq. Aditi Shah, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 529 14th Street, NW, Suite 722 Washington, D.C. 20045 Telephone: (202) 457-0800 E-mail: aspitzer@acludc.org smichelman@acludc.org ashah@acludc.org - and - Bradley Girard, Esq. Brian D. Netter, Esq. Christine L. Coogle, Esq. DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION Washington, DC 20043 Telephone: (202) 448-9090 Facsimile: (202) 796-4426 E-mail: bnetter@democracyforward.org bgirard@democracyforward.org ccoogle@democracyforward.org DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP: Scheduling Conference in Joukjian Extended -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANT JOUKJIAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP, INC.; and KEURIG DR PEPPER INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-04771-MRA-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue Rule 16 conference, stay discovery, and vacate class certification and other pre-trial deadlines: 1. The Scheduling Conference scheduled for Nov. 3, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. is continued to Jan. 26, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. Dr Pepper/Seven Up is a soft-drink manufacturing company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YqxRQJ at no extra charge.[CC] DRINK BREZ: Lopez Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------ VICTOR LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DRINK BREZ LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08640 (S.D.N.Y., October 18, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.drinkbrez.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on October 9, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Can of Brez from the Dream Collection from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Drink Brez LLC is a beverage company that produces cannabis and mushroom-infused drinks.[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 DULCICH INC: Williams Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOVIAN WILLIAMS, 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-01935-AN (D. Ore., October 20, 2025) is a class action arising out of Dulcich's failure to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack beginning on June 24, 2024, to compromise Defendant's network that contained personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other individuals enrolled in employment insurance benefits it administered. The data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect Plaintiff and Class Members' private information, says the suit. As a result of Dulcich's data breach, the Plaintiff and thousands of Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of financial losses resulting from identity theft, out-of pocket expenses, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief, seeking redress for Dulcich's unlawful conduct. Dulcich, Inc. d/b/a Pacific Seafood Company is an Oregon-based family-owned and operated seafood processing and distribution company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul B. Barton, Esq. OLSEN BARTON LLC 4035 Douglas Way, Ste. 200 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Telephone: (503) 558-5293 Facsimile: (503) 820-2933 E-mail: paul@olsenbarton.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com EAGLE MINE: Faces Chartre Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN CHARTRE, individually and for others similarly situated v. EAGLE MINE LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00240 (W.D. Mich., October 18, 2025) is a collective action to recover Plaintiff's unpaid wages and other damages from Eagle Mine pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Chartre and the other hourly employees regularly work more than 40 hours in a week. However, the Defendant does not pay Plaintiff and the other hourly employees for all hours worked, including overtime hours. Instead, Eagle requires Chartre and the other hourly employees to put on safety gear and gather equipment necessary to perform their job duties, while on Eagle's premises, "off the clock." Additionally, Eagle automatically records Chartre and the other hourly employees as working their pre-scheduled 12-hour shift each workday, even when they actually work more than 12 hours, says the suit. Plaintiff Chartre was employed by the Defendant as a miner from approximately April 2024 through March 2025 in its underground Eagle Mine. Eagle Mine LLC is owned by a Canadian company, Lundin Mining, and operates a mill and an underground mine producing nickel and copper concentrates on the Upper Peninsula.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLC 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 EARTHGRAINS DISTRIBUTION: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Munoz ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TLALOC MUNOZ, MIGUEL RUIZ, EDGAR CORONA, and STEVEN SNAVELY, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. EARTHGRAINS DISTRIBUTION, LLC and BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01269-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Battaglia entered an order denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, because the Defendants as the moving parties have failed to demonstrate they prevail as a matter of law, the Court denies the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court further ORDERS: 1. Any motion for class certification must be filed no later than Nov. 3, 2025. 2. Any opposition to the motion for class certification must be filed no later than Nov. 24, 2025. 3. Any reply must be filed no later than Dec. 8, 2025. 4. A hearing on the motion for class certification is set for Jan. 15, 2026, at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 4A before the undersigned. 5. Any request to modify the deadlines set herein must be filed in compliance with the Civil Local Rules and the undersigned Civil Case Procedures. Additionally, any such requests must address with specificity the cause justifying the request, supported by declarations. IT IS SO ORDERED. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Releases exhibit sufficient procedural and substantive unconscionability such that they are unenforceable to bar Plaintiffs' claims. This wage-and-hour Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") and putative class action centers on the alleged misclassification of Plaintiffs as independent contractors instead of employees. Earthgrains is a producer of bakery products. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wGMHrW at no extra charge.[CC] ESTEE LAUDER: Installs Data Trackers Without Consent, Dawkins Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MONICA DAWKINS, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. THE ESTEE LAUDER COMPANIES INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01405-SAB (E.D. Cal., October 20, 2025) is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all California residents after Defendant surreptitiously installs and operates tracking software on the its website, www.origins.com, without providing adequate notice or obtaining their informed consent in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the software is intentionally deployed to accomplish Defendant's commercial objectives, including identity resolution, targeted advertising, and the monetization of consumer data. To achieve these goals, the Defendant enables third-party technologies that function as unlawful pen registers and/or trap and trace devices, to capture detailed information about users' electronic communications such as Internet Protocol addresses, session data, and clickstream activity in real time. The Plaintiff and the Class Members did not consent to the installation, execution, embedding, or injection of the Trackers on their devices and did not expect their behavioral data to be disclosed or monetized in this way. By installing and activating the Trackers without obtaining user consent or a valid court order, the Defendant violated CIPA which prohibits the use of pen registers and trap and trace devices under these circumstances, says the suit. The Estee Lauder Companies Inc. is a multinational beauty company incorporated in the State of Delaware with principal executive offices in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC 40729 Village Dr., Suite 8 - 1989 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 E-mail: rc@rosscornelllaw.com EZ ADVOCATES: Bush Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BYRON BUSH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EZ ADVOCATES, LLC and RAHAMAN KARGAR, Case No. 8:25-cv-01375-KKM-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order as follows: 1. Conditionally certifying the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective; 2. Requiring the Defendants to identify all putative collective members by providing a list of their names, last known addresses, dates and location of employment, phone numbers, and email addresses in electronic and importable format within 10 days of the entry of the Order; 3. Authorizing the Plaintiffs' proposed form of notice (Exhibits A & B) and implementing a procedure whereby the notice of the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail, email, and text message) to: "All current and former employees who worked for the Defendants at any time during the last three years (the "FLSA Collective"). 4. Appointing the undersigned counsel as counsel for the FLSA Collective; and 5. Giving members of the FLSA Collective 60 days to join this case, measured from the date the Court-authorized notice is sent, with one reminder email sent 30 days thereafter to anyone who did not respond. EZ is a consumer protection agency. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ahdJCo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Pinkhasov, Esq. Emanuel Kataev, Esq. CONSUMER ATTORNEYS PLLC 6829 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367-1305 Telephone: (718) 412-2421 Facsimile: (718) 489-4155 E-mail: dpinkhasov@consumerattorneys.com ekataev@consumerattorneys.com FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: $4.62MM Settlement Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS A. SHIELDS, et al., v. FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE NATATION, Case No. 3:18-cv-07393-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order re: motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement: 1. This action is provisionally certified as a class action, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court preliminarily certifies the following three classes: An Injunctive Relief Settlement Class composed of: "All swimmers who signed contracts to participate in the International Swimming League from Jan. 1, 2018 through the date of the Settlement Agreement (Aug. 29, 2025)." A 2018 Damages Settlement Class composed of: "All swimmers who signed contracts to participate in the International Swimming League's December 2018 event set to take place in Turin, Italy." A 2019 Damages Settlement Class composed of: "All swimmers who signed contracts to participate in the International Swimming League's 2019 season." 2. Thomas A. Shields and Katinka Hosszú are conditionally appointed as the Class Representatives for all the Settlement Classes. 3. The Court conditionally appoints Winston & Strawn LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Classes. 4. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for final approval by Feb. 5, 2026. The motion shall include the information suggested by the Northern District of California Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements. 5. The parties shall appear before this Court for a final approval hearing on Feb. 26, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, California. Thomas A. Shields and Katinka Hosszú are professional swimmers who bring federal antitrust claims and a state law tort claim against World Aquatics (formerly known as the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA)), related to World Aquatics' control over international swimming competitions. After the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this Court’s grant of summary judgment in Defendant's favor, the parties stipulated to certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class and thereafter reached a classwide settlement. Under the Settlement Agreement, Defendant will pay a total of $4,627,084.00 in settlement damages, consisting of $1,127,084.00 for the 2018 Damages Settlement Class and $3,500,000.00 for the 2019 Damages Settlement Class (the Damages Classes Settlement Funds). A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AHhTMc at no extra charge.[CC] FIRST STUDENT: Renewed Bid for Settlement Prelim. Approval Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA GALVAN, et al., v. FIRST STUDENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-07378-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order denying renewed motion for preliminary approval of proposed class action settlement. The Court sets a case management conference on Dec. 2, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. An updated joint case management statement is due Nov. 24, 2025. That statement must address all of the topics set forth in the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California -- Contents of Joint Case Management Statement, including by providing proposed dates for designation of experts, discovery cut-off, hearing of dispositive motions, pretrial conference, and trial. The Plaintiffs have failed to rectify the issues the Court identified in its previous order. The amended proposed settlement agreement reveals that the Plaintiffs' counsel still has not obtained the class list. Moreover, if the class list reveals that the total number of workweeks exceeds the expectations of the parties and the parties cannot agree on an adjustment to the settlement amount, the settlement will collapse. This uncertainty, created by Plaintiffs' counsel's failure to procure basic records after years of litigation, demonstrates the Plaintiffs' counsel's inadequacy to represent the class. For the foregoing reasons, the proposed settlement class fails to satisfy Rule 23, and the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval is therefore denied. The Plaintiff Galvan initiated this action in San Mateo County Superior Court on Nov. 6, 2018, and the Defendants removed it to federal court on Dec. 7, 2018. The Plaintiffs originally moved for class certification on Oct. 14, 2021. The Plaintiffs filed their renewed motion for preliminary approval of a proposed class action settlement on April 24, 2025. First provides transportation services to school districts and related clients. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UH1MPQ at no extra charge.[CC] FOOD SYSTEMS: Bid for More Time to File Response/Reply Due Nov. 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Enguerra, et al., v. Food Systems Unlimited, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00182 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Jan. 11, 2025), the Hon. Judge Eric R. Komitee entered an order that: -- Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Nov. 17, 2025. -- The Defendants shall respond to the pending motion for class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Food is a restaurant management company.[CC] FOODPREP SOLUTIONS: Gawlik Seeks Conditional Cert of Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD GAWLIK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. FOODPREP SOLUTIONS LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-10615-IT (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- granting conditional certification of the collective action, and -- authorizing notice to issue to a putative class consisting of the following group of individuals: "All individuals who worked for FoodPrep Solutions LLC as Route Sales Representatives within the United States from Feb. 3, 2022 to the present." FoodPrep is an all-in-one provider of knife and specialty sharpening, food equipment sales and maintenance, and food merchandise. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M3nLJw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Shafran, Esq. Eric J. Walz, Esq. Solal Wanstok, Esq. RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP 92 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 723-7700 Facsimile: (617) 227-0313 E-mail: ashafran@rflawyers.com ewalz@rflawyers.com swanstok@rflawyers.com FPI MANAGEMENT: "Duffy" Class Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Wylie Duffy, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Yardi Systems, Inc., et al., Defendants, No. 2:23-cv-01391-RSL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement with Defendant FPI Management, Inc. The Court certified a Settlement Class defined as all persons and entities in the United States that leased multifamily housing in the United States from a landlord that used Yardi's RENTmaximizer or Revenue IQ software programs, or from its division, subsidiary, predecessor, agent, or affiliate, at any time during the period of September 8, 2019, until the date of entry of an order granting preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement. The Court appointed Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Lead counsel for the Settlement Class. The Court found that the proposed Settlement Agreement has been negotiated at arm's length and falls within the range of possible approval. The Settlement Agreement is preliminarily determined to be fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class. The Court found the Settlement satisfies the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2) and 23(e) and due process. The Court deferred formal notice to the Settlement Class at this stage. The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing after Class Notice has been approved and disseminated to determine whether the Settlements are fair, reasonable, and adequate. Class Members who wish to exclude themselves from the Settlements will be required to submit an appropriate and timely request for exclusion. Class Members who wish to object to the Settlements must submit an appropriate and timely written statement of the grounds for objection. A copy of the court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NmXcWe from PacerMonitor.com GETAWAY TAMPA: Conditional Cert of FLSA Collective Sought --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON BOWLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. THE GETAWAY TAMPA BAY, LLC d/b/a THE GETAWAY, Case No. 8:25-cv-02467-SDM-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time up to and including Nov. 17, 2025, within which to file its response to the motion for conditional certification of the FLSA collective. The Defendant's lead counsel, Brett Owens, will be in San Francisco, California for a conference from October 26th until October 30th, and co-counsel Elysse Gorney has an appellate brief due in Florida state court on November 4th. As a result, the Defendant requests an extension of time up to and including Nov. 17, 2025, within which to file its response to Plaintiff's Motion to Certify. The Plaintiff filed his motion to certify on Oct. 13, 2025. Getaway is a hospitality company, offering a range of vacation rental properties. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5vXxoY at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Brett P. Owens, Esq. Elysse V. Gorney, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 3100 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 769-7500 E-mail: bowens@fisherphillips.com egorney@fisherphillips.com GKN DRIVELINE: Court Denies Pre-2020 Class Certification in "Ayers" ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases captioned as James Ayers, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GKN Driveline North America, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:23-CV-581; John Carson, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GKN Driveline North America, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:23-CV-583; and Tamika Ferges, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GKN Driveline North America, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:23-CV-585, Chief District Judge Catherine C. Eagles of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina denied motions for collective and class certification for pre-2020 wage and hour claims while holding certification decisions for post-2020 claims in abeyance. The Court granted in part and denied in part motions for equitable tolling of statutes of limitations. The Plaintiffs in these related actions are employees at plants operated by the Defendant GKN Driveline North America in Mebane, Sanford, and Roxboro, North Carolina. They allege that the Defendant's wage and hour policies violate the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. The Plaintiffs sought collective certification for their FLSA actions and Rule 23 class certification for their NCWHA actions. On behalf of putative collective and class members, the Plaintiffs also moved to toll the statutes of limitations applicable to the FLSA collective and NCWHA class claims. The Court found that the proposed pre-2020 subcollectives and subclasses are not suitable for collective and class resolution. The Court explained that collective actions under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 are similar in some ways but have distinct and meaningfully different requirements. The Court emphasized that district courts must exercise significant discretion in certifying both collectives and class actions to ensure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of such cases. Regarding the pre-2020 FLSA subcollectives, the Court found that preliminary certification of these FLSA collectives is not appropriate. The time-shaving claims asserted in the present actions and the rounding claims asserted in the earlier Mebane v. GKN case are essentially the same. Both cover claims asserting employees were not paid for required work done before and after they clocked in. The Plaintiffs acknowledged that the present action represents a direct continuation of Mebane. The Court already found that the rounding or time-shaving claims raised too many individual questions for a collective to work well in Mebane. The Court made the same findings in the class certification context for the auto-deduction claim. Dividing the Plaintiffs into three groups based on the plants where they worked removes only one of the many obstacles previously identified by the Court. The Plaintiffs have made no real effort to address those problems. Collective treatment is imprudent when it is unlikely to promote orderly and sensible case management. Moreover, every employee received notice of the Mebane case and had an opportunity to opt in to the FLSA action. Those who did and who joined one of these three lawsuits have had the statute of limitations tolled for their FLSA time-shaving/rounding claims from when they opted in to Mebane, and they can pursue their claims in the present actions. Those who did not opt in have long since had their claims, as to both rounding and auto-deductions, barred by the statute of limitations. The requested application of equitable tolling would give rise to many individual questions. Concerning the pre-2020 NCWHA subclasses, the Court noted that the case was filed on July 14, 2023, and the statute of limitations for North Carolina wage and hour claims is two years. Nothing else appearing, claims for unpaid wages accruing before July 14, 2021, are barred by the statute of limitations. The filing of the putative class action in Mebane tolled the statute of limitations for the claims asserted. That tolling ceased when the class was decertified on May 12, 2023. The present Plaintiffs immediately filed these lawsuits, asserting the same rounding Wage and Hour claims and seeking to certify a class to pursue the same pre-2020 claims asserted in Mebane. The United States Supreme Court has foreclosed a second follow-on class action under these circumstances, specifically holding in China Agritech v. Resh that once a class action is decertified, an untimely successive class action on the same claim cannot proceed. The Supreme Court stated that to permit otherwise would allow the statute of limitations to be extended time and again; as each class is denied certification, a new named plaintiff could file a class complaint that resuscitates the litigation. That is exactly what the Plaintiffs seek to do here. The Plaintiffs acknowledge their wage and hour claims are a direct, immediate, and uninterrupted continuation of the prior Mebane action. Under Crown, Cork & Seal Co., once the class in Mebane was decertified, the erstwhile Rule 23 class members were free to bring their claims on an individual basis, with the statute of limitations tolled from the filing of the class complaint in Mebane. Some have done so here. But China Agritech prohibits a follow-on class action raising the same class claims already raised in Mebane. As to the post-2020 off-the-clock work subcollective and class, the Court noted it appears undisputed that at some point around 2020, the Defendant changed its timekeeping policies. The Defendant says it ceased the automatic meal deduction and rounding practice at issue in Mebane in January 2020, and the Court understands the Plaintiffs to challenge, on behalf of a class and collective, the current timekeeping practices associated with clocking in. The post-2020 claims were not at issue in Mebane. The Court found the way the multitude of motions have been briefed in these cases makes it almost impossible to understand these claims and whether certification is appropriate. The Plaintiffs' primary efforts have focused on the pre-2020 claims, and their discussion of the claims asserted by the proposed post-2020 class and collective has gotten short shrift. The Court will hold open a decision about certification of this class and collective to allow the parties a limited period of time to complete discovery on these claims. Regarding tolling of the statutes of limitations, the Court denied the motion for equitable tolling of NCWHA claims on behalf of the putative class to the extent it seeks tolling back to events related to Mebane. Since the Court is not going to certify that class, the named Plaintiffs do not represent former Mebane class members and cannot act as their agents to seek tolling on their behalf. As to the post-2020 off-the-clock claims, claims that are proffered on behalf of a putative class and that were not asserted in Mebane, the statute of limitations is tolled as of the date of filing these lawsuits: July 14, 2023. The Court also denied the Plaintiffs' motions for equitable tolling of FLSA claims going back to events in Mebane. The statute of limitations on FLSA claims is not automatically tolled by the filing of a putative FLSA collective. An employee's FLSA claim commences and tolls the statute of limitations only when the employee files written consent to opt in. Notice was sent to employees in Mebane that they could opt in, and for those who did not and who have not chosen to become plaintiffs in this case, tolling the statute of limitations would be inequitable and prejudicial to the Defendant. However, the Court granted equitable tolling of the statute of limitations on the new post-2020 off-the-clock FLSA claims as of the date of the filing of these three lawsuits: July 14, 2023. Equitable tolling is appropriate when extraordinary circumstances beyond plaintiffs' control made it impossible to file the claims on time. Here, there were extraordinary circumstances. The lawsuit was filed well over two years ago, and the case got derailed due to discovery disputes in which the Defendant ultimately did not prevail. The move to inactive status by the original judge and the parties' request for time to discuss settlement have also contributed to a delay in notice. Accordingly, the Court denied the motions for conditional collective certification and class certification as to the pre-2020 proposed subcollectives and subclasses in all three cases. A decision on the Plaintiffs' motions to certify a class and conditionally certify a collective as to post-2020 claims is held in abeyance. The Court denied the motions for equitable tolling of NCWHA claims on behalf of the putative class to the extent they seek tolling back to events related to Mebane, and granted equitable tolling to the extent that the statute of limitations for the putative collective members' post-2020 FLSA collective claims is equitably tolled from July 14, 2023, pending further order. The Court ordered that the parties shall complete all discovery needed to address class and collective certification on the remaining claims and all fact discovery by December 20, 2025. If the Plaintiffs wish to pursue the off-the-clock claims on behalf of a post-2020 class or collective, they may file an amended motion, brief, and evidence, no later than January 12, 2026, to which the Defendant may respond no later than February 2, 2026. The Plaintiffs may file a reply brief no later than March 13, 2026. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h5cRyr from PacerMonitor.com GLOBAL E-TRADING: Sihler Seeks Approval of Attys' Fees & Costs -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET SIHLER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. GLOBAL E-TRADING, LLC DBA CHARGEBACKS911, GARY CARDONE, and MONICA EATON, GARY CARDONE, MONICA EATON, Case No. 8:23-cv-01450-VMC-LSG (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for Attys' fees and costs: The Plaintiffs and Defendant Global e-Trading, LLC, d/b/a Chargebacks911 (CB911) have agreed to a Class Settlement to resolve the putative Class's claims against those Defendants in exchange for $12.5 million. The Plaintiffs now seek attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h). Class Counsel requests that the Court award one-third of the common fund in attorneys' fees, or $4,166,666.66, and an additional $334,064.45 in costs, to be paid out proportionately with the settlement payments. On behalf of the Settlement Administrator, Plaintiffs seek the expenses associated with settlement administration, currently estimated at $117,106, along with actual bills to date of $32,476.22, to be paid when due. The total amount of the requested attorney's fees here is one-third of $12.5 million, or $4,166,666.66. The settlement administrator here, Kroll, has submitted an estimate of expenses of $117,106, along with actual bills to date of $32,476.22. Because this settlement involves multiple payments, there will be settlement administration expenses in future years to distribute those payments as they are made, and the Plaintiffs request approval to continue making those payments. In total, the Plaintiffs request an award of $451,170.45 in costs, with Class Counsel's portion of this (not Kroll's) to be paid out proportionately with each payment made under the settlement. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wOiVMb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin M. Kneupper, Esq. KNEUPPER & COVEY, PC 17011 Beach Blvd Ste 900 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Telephone: (657) 845-3100 GOOGLE INC: Parties in Cookie Suit Must Submit Joint Class Report ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litigation, Case No. 1:12-md-02358-JDW (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Joshua D. Wolson entered an order as follows: 1. On or before Oct. 21, 2025, the Plaintiffs shall provide Google with a written statement identifying with specificity the information their expert(s) require to conduct their ascertainability analysis; 2. On or before Oct. 24, 2025, Google shall provide the Plaintiffs with a written response indicating whether it can produce the information that Plaintiffs seek, and, if not, identifying any anticipated burdens, limitations, or concerns associated with producing such information; 3. On or before 5:00 p.m. ET on Oct. 29, 2025, the Parties shall submit a joint letter to the Court, via email to Chambers_of_Judge_Wolson@paed.uscourts.gov or on the docket, addressing their respective positions and any issues they intend to raise at the following discovery hearing; and 4. Judge will conduct a telephone status conference with Parties at 3:30 p.m. ET on Oct. 31, 2025, to resolve what, if any, additional data Google will provide to Plaintiffs and to set a schedule for class certification briefing. Google is an American company, based in Mountain View, California that specializes in internet services, most notably as a search engine. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e524on at no extra charge.[CC] GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE: Robinson Sues Over Inadequate Data Security ---------------------------------------------------------------- GRACE ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01176-P (N.D. Tex., October 20, 2025) seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. According to Goosehead, the personal information accessed by cybercriminals involved a wide variety of personally identifiable information and protected health information of employees including Plaintiff. As part of its business, and in order to gain profits, the Defendant obtained and stored the personal information of Plaintiff and Class members. By taking possession and control of Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information, the Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect the Personal Information of Plaintiff and the Class. The Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their personal information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it. Additionally, the Plaintiff and Class members have already lost time and money responding to and mitigating the impact of the data breach, which efforts are continuous and ongoing, says the suit. Goosehead Insurance Agency LLC is an independent personal lines insurance agency that distributes products and services throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Wills Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com GRANT MONEY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Revell Due July 10, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Revell v. Grant Money, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-05994-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Trial date: Jan. 31, 2028 Final pretrial conference: Dec. 9, 2027 Merits expert discovery cut-off: June 18, 2027 Fact discovery cut-off: Nov. 20, 2026 Last day to hear motion for class certification: Hearing: Oct. 30, 2026 Reply due: Sept. 4, 2026 Opposition due: Aug. 14, 2026 Last day to file: July 10, 2026 A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P6y6Yo at no extra charge.[CC] HANDI-FOIL CORP: Seeks Brief Adjournment for Class Cert Hearing --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Osdoby v. Handi-foil Corp., Case No. 2:22-cv-04199-NG-JMW (E.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting request for a brief adjournment of the hearing date for the following motions: -- Pending Motions for Summary Judgment (Handi-Foil's motion) and for Class Certification (Plaintiff's motion Handi-foil is a privately owned manufacturer of aluminum products. A copy the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1GdH6Z at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Michael A. Glick, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 389-5000 Facsimile: (202) 389-5200 HASBRO INC: Scheduling Conference Order Entered in My Gameroom -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MY GAMEROOM, LLC, v. HASBRO, INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-07392-MCS-MBK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Scarsi entered an order setting scheduling conference as follows: Joint Rule 26(f) Report The Joint Rule 26(f) Report must be filed by 14 days before the Scheduling Conference. A request to continue the Scheduling Conference will be granted only for good cause. b. Vacating the Scheduling Conference: The Court often vacates the Scheduling Conference and issues the Scheduling Order based solely on the Joint Rule 26(f) Report. c. Participation: If there is a hearing, lead trial counsel must attend. Disclosures to Clients Counsel are ordered to deliver to their clients a copy of this Order and of the Court’s Order Re: Jury/Court Trial, which will contain the schedule that the Court sets at the Scheduling Conference. Hasbro is an American multinational toy manufacturing and entertainment holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IGXsaH at no extra charge.[CC] HAWTHORN SENIOR: Ortiz Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ROSARIO ORTIZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAWTHORN SENIOR LIVING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CV018240, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on October 20, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-at-01428 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges causes of action for (1) unpaid overtime, (2) unpaid minimum wages, (3) failure to authorize and permit rest periods, (4) non-compliant wage statements and failure to maintain payroll records, (5) wages not timely paid upon termination, (6) failure to timely pay wages during employment, (7) unlawful business practices, and (8) unfair business practices. Hawthorn Senior Living, LLC offers retirement living for seniors.[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 E-mail: 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 E-mail: jnordlander@seyfarth.com HESS BAKKEN: Court Strikes Class Allegations in Penman ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ronald Penman and Adelante Oil & Gas, LLC, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated royalty owners, v. Hess Bakken Investments II, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00097-DLH-CRH (D.N.D.), the Hon. Judge Daniel L. Hovland entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to strike class allegations. In this case, Hess' liability to the entire class for its breach of contract cannot be established with common evidence. The substance of a royalty obligation arises from the lease language. The proposed class members' leases could involve countless variations. Consequently, the Court would need to review and interpret every contract to determine whether the language creates the necessary type of obligation to meet the class definition. Some contracts may require the resolution of ambiguities and a review of extrinsic evidence. The adjudication of the breach of contract claims would necessitate individual inquires and potential legal analyses for the more than 1,000 class members, some of whom may be paid under more than one lease. The individualized issues in this case predominate over the common claim for relief by the proposed class. The negative gas royalty class lacks the cohesion necessary to warrant class certification. Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant’s motion to strike the class allegations. On June 10, 2022, Ronald Penman brought an action on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated royalty owners. Penman filed an amended complaint on June 22, 2022, adding Adelante Oil & Gas, LLC as a Plaintiff. The proposed subclasses include royalty owners that allegedly received a negative gas royalty. Penman defines their negative gas royalty subclass, Subclass III, as: "All persons to whom Hess has paid or was obligated to pay royalties on oil or natural gas produced from wells located in the State of North Dakota since May 2012 pursuant to an oil and gas lease or overriding royalty agreement where Hess's post-production expenses for gas were deducted from a royalty owner's oil royalties." Excluded from Subclass III are: (a) the United States; (b) any person who has been a working interest owner in a well located in North Dakota on whose behalf Hess has paid royalties on oil or natural gas produced by Hess in North Dakota; and (c) Hess and its affiliated entities, and their respective employees, officers, and directors. Sandy River defines their negative gas royalty subclass, Subclass II, as: "All persons and entities to whom Hess has paid royalties, including into suspense accounts, on oil and gas produced from wells located in the State of North Dakota since June 2012, where Hess has paid a gas royalty in an amount which was negative." Excluded from the class are: (1) the United States; (2) any working interests in a well located in the State of North Dakota held by any person or entity who has received oil royalties from Hess; and (3) Hess and its affiliated entities, and their respective employees, officers, and directors. On Feb. 7, 2024, the Plaintiffs defined the combined putative class definition (“negative gas royalty class”) in their consolidated discovery as: "All mineral owners and overriding royalty holders or their successors-in-interest to whom Hess has paid or was obligated to pay royalties on oil and natural gas produced from wells located in the State of North Dakota since May 2012 pursuant to an oil and gas lease or overriding royalty agreement where Hess has deducted post-production costs related to its gas production, or administrative costs, from mineral owners' or overriding royalty holders' royalties." Excluded from Subclass II are: (a) the United States; and (b) any person who has been a working interest owner in a well located in North Dakota on whose behalf Hess has paid royalties on oil or natural gas produced by Hess in North Dakota; and (c) Hess and its affiliated entities, and their respective employees, officers, and directors. Hess operates numerous oil and gas wells in North Dakota. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WUi3j2 at no extra charge.[CC] HEWLETT-PACKARD: $625,000 Settlement in Caccavale Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tony Caccavale, et al., v. Hewlett-Packard Company A/K/A HP Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00974-NJC-ST (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nusrat Choudhury entered a Final Approval Order As To Claims Against Unisys: 1. The settlement agreement is finally approved under Rule 23(e). 2. The following class (the "New York State Settlement Class") is finally certified for settlement purposes under Rule 23(e)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P.: "Current or former employees of Unisys (including the Named Plaintiffs) who are or were employed at any time by Unisys in New York based on a Unisys-assigned New York work location, during the period Feb. 21, 2014 through Oct. 20, 2023 in one or more of the following positions in the Service Delivery Employee job family: Field Engineer 1, Field Engineer 2, Field Engineer 3, Field Engineer 4, Customer Engineer 2, Customer Engineer 3, Customer Engineer 4, Customer Engineer 5, Customer Engineer 6, Client Infrast Rep 3-Barg Unit, Client Infrast Rep 4-Bar Unit, Client Infrast Rep 5-Barg Unit, UTS Field Svc Associate, UTS Field Svc Tech 1, UTS Field Svc Tech 2, UTS Field Svc Tech 3, UTS Field Svc Tech 4, or UTS Field Svc Tech 5 (collectively "Service Delivery Employees")." 3. The following collective (the "Federal FLSA Settlement Collective") is finally certified for settlement purposes only under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): "Current or former employees of Unisys (including the named Plaintiffs) who are or were employed at any time by Unisys in New York based on a Unisys-assigned New York work location, during the period Dec. 17, 2017 through Oct. 20, 2023 in one or more of the following positions in the Service Delivery Employee job family: Field Engineer 1, Field Engineer 2, Field Engineer 3, Field Engineer 4, Customer Engineer 2, Customer Engineer 3, Customer Engineer 4, Customer Engineer 5, Customer Engineer 6, Client Infrast Rep 3-Barg Unit, Client Infrast Rep 4 Bar Unit, Client Infrast Rep 5-Barg Unit, UTS Field Svc Associate, UTS Field Svc Tech 1, UTS Field Svc Tech 2, UTS Field Svc Tech 3, UTS Field Svc Tech 4, or UTS Field Svc Tech 5." 4. The Court confirms its prior appointment of Paul A. Pagano of the Law Office of Paul A. Pagano, P.C. and Jason L. Abelove of the Law Offices of Jason L. Abelove, P.C. as Class Counsel. 5. The Court confirms its prior appointment of Douglas Sorbie as Settlement Class Representative. 6. Sorby and Unisys will comply with the following procedure for distributing the Gross Settlement Amount: a. Unisys shall deposit the Gross Settlement Amount with the Claims Administrator within twenty-one days after the Effective Date. b. Out of the $625,000.00 Gross Settlement Amount, the Court awards litigation costs in the amount of $35,000.00 to Class Counsel for their actual costs and expenses incurred in this Action. c. Out of the $625,000.00 Gross Settlement Amount, the Court awards Class Counsel fair and reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of one-third of the Gross Settlement Amount minus litigation costs resulting in an award of $196,666.67, which is awarded pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. d. Out of the $625,000.00 Gross Settlement Amount, the Court awards the Claims Administrator $11,600.00 in reasonable costs in administering the Settlement, which is awarded pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. e. The Court approves the Service Award of $10,000.00 to Settlement Class Representative Douglas Sorbie as described in the Settlement Agreement, to be paid from the Gross Settlement Amount, which is awarded pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. f. The remainder of the Gross Settlement Amount of $371,733.33 shall be distributed by the Claims Administrator pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. Sorbie brings claims against Unisys for failure to timely pay regular and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), on behalf of himself, a conditionally certified FLSA collective, and a proposed class of service delivery employees. HP is an American manufacturer of software and computer services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lr9Q5n at no extra charge.[CC] HI-SCHOOL PHARMACY: Class Settlement in Landin Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAYNA MARIE LANDIN, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. HI-SCHOOL PHARMACY SERVICES, LLC, and HI-SCHOOL PHARMACY, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-05115-TMC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Tiffany Cartwright entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action settlement and the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards. -- The Court affirms its determinations in the preliminary approval order certifying, for the purposes of the Settlement only, the Action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 on behalf of the Settlement Class consisting of: "All U.S. residents whose Personal Information was compromised in the Data Incident disclosed by the Defendant on Dec. 5, 2023." The Settlement Class specifically excludes: (i) Defendant and its officers and directors; (ii) all Settlement Class Members who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class; (iii) the presiding judge, and his or her staff and family, and (iv) any other 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 Court appoints Shayna Marie Landin as Class Representative for the Settlement Class and appoints Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, to serve as counsel for the Settlement Class. -- Class Counsel is awarded combined attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $198,000.00 to be paid as specified in the Settlement Agreement. -- The Class Representatives are each awarded $3,000.00, to be paid as specified in the Settlement Agreement. Hi-School is a pharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E6owsl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cecily C. Jordan, Esq. Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101-3147 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: kboyd@tousley.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBER COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe St., Ste. 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com HILCORP ENERGY: AB's Seafood Suit Transferred to W.D. Louisiana --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as AB's Seafood LLC, David Chauvins Seafood Co., Dulac Oyster Co., Dardar Oysters LLC, Faith Family Shrimp Co., Shrimp Kingdom Seafood LLC, Terry Luke, Jr., Lukes Seafood LLC, Benny J. Blanchard, Jason Cabanilla, Ricky Trahan, Otis Cantrelle, Jr., James G. Laughlin, Percy Dardar Sr LLC, Corina Corina Seafood LLC, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Hilcorp Energy Co., , Case No. 2:23-cv-06653 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on Oct. 21, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:25-cv-01583 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Property Damage. Hilcorp Energy Development, L.P. -- https://www.hilcorp.com/ -- operates as an oil and natural gas producer.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles C Bourque, Jr., Esq. Christopher J. St. Martin, Esq. Joseph G Jevic, III, Esq. ST MARTIN & BOURQUE 315 Barrow St Houma, LA 70360 Phone: (985) 876-3891 Fax: (985) 851-2219 Email: cbourque@stmblaw.com cstmartin@stmblaw.com jjevic@stmblaw.com - and - David Winston Ardoin, Esq. Preston Lee Hayes, Esq. Ryan Paul Monsour, Esq. AMO TRIAL LAWYERS LLC 604 W Third St Thibodaux, LA 70301 Phone: (985) 446-3333 Fax: (985) 446-3300 Email: david@amotriallawyers.com plh@amotriallawyers.com rpm@amotriallawyers.com - and - Ellen Daigle Doskey, Esq. TERREBONNE PARISH DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE 7856 Main St Ste 220 Houma, LA 70360 Phone: (985) 873-6500 Email: ellendoskey@tpda.org - and - Gary Williams, Jr., Esq. H. B. Downer, Jr., Esq. Joseph Lee Waitz, III, Esq. Mary W. Riviere, Esq. WAITZ & DOWNER 423 Goode Street Houma, LA 70630 Phone: (985) 876-0870 Fax: (985) 876-0213 Email: willgary8@gmail.com hunt.downer@waitz-downer.com josephwaitziii@waitz-downer.com mriviere@waitz-downer.com - and - Joseph L Waitz, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH L WAITZ JR P O Box 2454 Houma, LA 70361 Phone: (985) 876-0131 Fax: (985) 876-0131 Email: joewaitzjr@tpda.org - and - Matthew D. Ory, Esq. ORY LAW GROUP, LLC 213-B East Bayou Road Thibodaux, LA 70301 Phone: (985) 303-1679 Email: matt@askforory.com - and - William S Bordelon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM S BORDELON 407 Roussell St Houma, LA 70360 Phone: (985) 851-4241 Fax: (985) 851-4385 Email: billy@wsbordelon.com The Defendant is represented by: Craig Isenberg, Esq. Michael A Balascio, Esq. BARRASSO USDIN ET AL (NO) 909 Poydras St Ste 2350 New Orleans, LA 70112 Phone: (504) 589-9753 Fax: (504) 589-9701 Email: cisenberg@barrassousdin.com mbalascio@barrassousdin.com - and - Alexandra Leigh Gjertson, Esq. LISKOW & LEWIS (LAF) 1200 Camellia Blvd Ste 300 Lafayette, LA 70508 Phone: (337) 267-2309 Email: agjertson@liskow.com - and - Charles A Mouton, Esq. Jared Luke Foti, Esq. MAHTOOK & LAFLEUR (LAF) P O Box 3089 Lafayette, LA 70502-3089 Phone: (337) 266-2189 Fax: (337) 266-2303 Email: cmouton@mandllaw.com jfoti@mandllaw.com HOSPITAL SISTERS: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Reply ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brahm, Natalie v. Hospital Sisters Health System, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00444 (W.D. Wisc., Filed July 5, 2023), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order that the parties jointly move to extend the Plaintiffs' Oct. 24 deadline to file their reply documents supporting class certification by three weeks to Nov. 14. The Plaintiffs wish to depose defendants' experts prior to replying, but one of these experts cannot be deposed until Oct. 31. The Plaintiffs say they may be forced to move for leave to supplement their reply if they cannot depose the expert first. But the parties have been aware of the class certification briefing schedule since June, when the court reset the deadlines a second time at the parties' request. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Hospital is a non-profit healthcare system.[CC] HRM RESOURCES: McCormick Wins Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CINDY MCCORMICK, RONALD MCCORMICK and TRUPP LAND MANAGEMENT LLC, v. HRM RESOURCES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, HRM RESOURCES II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, HRM RESOURCES III, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, HRM RESOURCES IV, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, L. ROGER HUTSON, TERRY PAPE, A PAINTED PEGASUS PETROLEUM, LLC, a Texas limited liability company and JOHN HOFFMAN, Case No. 1:24-cv-00823-CNS-CYC (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Sweeney entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b), the Plaintiffs' class as proposed in the certification motion is certified under Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3). Cindy McCormick, Ronald McCormick, and Trupp Land Management LLC are named as representatives of the class. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), Borison Firm LLC is appointed as class counsel. HRM Defendants' motion to strike portions of the Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for class certification, or in the alternative, for leave to file sur-reply to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied. Given the Plaintiffs' request that the Court issue an order regarding an "administrative scheduling order," the parties are ordered to file a joint statement, not to exceed ten pages, setting forth their positions regarding a class notice schedule and any other administrative issues they have identified attendant to such schedule and providing class notices. The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs that any possible damages variations are immaterial for superiority purposes, as well as that class treatment of the Plaintiffs' claims is preferable, particularly considering the difficulty any individual plaintiff or putative class member faces in litigating the issues presented by Plaintiffs alone. In sum, consideration of the Rule 23(b)(3) factors demonstrate Plaintiffs have met their superiority burden, notwithstanding Defendants' contrary arguments as to the superiority factors. Certification of the Plaintiffs' proposed class, under both Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3), is proper. The Plaintiffs have satisfied all requirements under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b) by a preponderance of the evidence. HRM is an oil and gas exploration and production company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DJhV66 at no extra charge.[CC] HUNGRY POT: Dengtao Seeks More Time to File Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENGTAO CAO A/K/A PHILLIP CAO, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, v. HUNGRY POT DARTMOUTH INC., HUAXIN CHEN, HONG AN ZHENG, YI PING ZHENG, SHUO CHEN, AND LEO "DOE," Case No. 1:24-cv-11797-JEK (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order enlarging their time in which to motion for a conditional class Certification by forty-five days -- through and including Nov. 26, 2025. The Plaintiff and their counsel require more time to file the motion for conditional class collective certification. The requested enlargement of time is for good cause and is made without intent to delay the case. The Plaintiff requests that the motion be filed 30 days before the opposition is due. The Plaintiff requests that the reply be filed 21 days after the opposition is filed. The Defendant is a Korean BBQ and hot pot restaurant. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WqRBzF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com HUNGRY POT: Filing for Class Cert Bid in CAO Extended to Nov. 26 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAO v. HUNGRY POT DARTMOUTH INC et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-11797 (D. Mass., Filed July 12, 2024), the Hon. Judge Julia E. Kobick entered an order granting consent motion for extension of time to Nov. 26, 2025, to file motion for conditional collective class certification. -- Oppositions to be filed 30 days after and any replies to be filed 21 days after that. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Hungry is a Korean all-you-can-eat barbecue & hot pot restaurant.[CC] HYUNDAI MOTOR: Hageman Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brenda Hageman, et al., v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 8:23-cv-01045-HDV-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their application for leave to file under seal the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Exhibits in support, pursuant to L.R. 79-5.2.2(b). On Oct. 10, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, the declaration of Stephen Taylor and exhibits attached thereto, which reference and/or attach exhibits and discovery material that Defendant Hyundai Motor America designated as "Confidential" under the June 24, 2024, Stipulated Protective Order. Hyundai is the operating subsidiary that oversees all operations of Hyundai Motor Company in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qz9Wfj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen Taylor, Esq. Vlad Hirnyk, Esq. Trinette G. Kent, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-2250 E-mail: staylor@lemberglaw.com vhirnyk@lemberglaw.com tkent@lemberglaw.com INNOVATIVE TAX: Bid to Amend CMO IN Hewett Class Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON HEWETT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. INNOVATIVE TAX RELIEF LLC, Case No. 7:25-cv-01185-FL-RN (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Louise Flanagan entered an order granting the Defendant's "Unopposed Motion to Amend / Clarify Case Management Order". The Case Management Order's deadline regarding personal jurisdiction motions is modified as follows: motions related to personal jurisdiction for punitive class members are due 30 days after Plaintiff files a motion seeking class certification. All other terms and conditions in the court's Case Management Order, not altered herein, shall remain in full force and effect Innovative is a tax relief company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x0V5kR at no extra charge.[CC] INSTITUTE OF CULINARY: Collins Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ ELIZABETH COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE INSTITUTE OF CULINARY EDUCATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08623 (S.D.N.Y., October 17, 2025) seeks injunctive and declaratory relief arising from Defendant's failure to safeguard personally identifiable information or private information of Plaintiff and Class Members, which resulted in unauthorized access to its information systems on May 5, 2025, and the compromised and unauthorized disclosure of that private information, causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class members. The Defendant detected unusual activity in its computer systems, and ultimately determined that an unauthorized third party accessed its network and obtained certain files from its systems. The Defendant's failure to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive private information as exposed and unauthorizedly disclosed in the data breach violates its common law duty, New York law, and Defendant's implied contract with Plaintiff and Class Members to safeguard their private information. The Defendant's failure to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information has harmed and will continue to harm Plaintiff and Class Members, causing Plaintiff to seek relief on a Class wide basis, says the suit. On behalf of herself and the Class, the Plaintiff brings causes of action against Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of implied contract, resulting from Defendant's failure to adequately protect their highly sensitive Private Information. The Institute of Culinary Education, Inc. is a private for-profit culinary school with locations in New York City and Los Angeles, offering career training, diploma and associate degree programs in the culinary arts both in person and online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com ashamis@shamisgentile.com INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Class Cert Hearing Set for Nov. 19 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe v. International Association of Eating Disorder Professionals Foundation Inc., et al, Case No. 1:24-cv-01474 (C.D. Cal., Filed Nov. 22, 2024), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Mihm entered an order setting motion hearing to certify class for Nov. 19, 2025. The parties are directed to dial 551-285-1373 and then enter 16057196032#. The nature of suit states Antitrust related violations. International provides the provision of education and training standards to healthcare providers.[CC] JACKSON LABORATORY: Class Cert Filing Extended to April 17, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMMALIE SEIJAS, on behalf of themself and others similarly situated, v. THE JACKSON LABORATORY, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-03423-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered an order extending the Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification to April 17, 2026. The Court warns the parties that no further extensions of time will be granted absent a showing of good cause. The Court finds sufficient good cause to extend the deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification. Though the Plaintiff has not displayed the level of diligence this Court expects of litigants, due to the Defendants' largely unresponsive discovery responses the Court does not expect that the Plaintiff can reasonably meet the existing class certification deadline. Further, the Plaintiff's requests for extensions of discovery deadlines stemmed in part from a good faith belief that the parties were engaged in informal discovery in furtherance of ongoing settlement negotiations. However, the Court declines to extend any other deadlines at this time. Jackson is an independent, non-profit biomedical research institution. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AEZutQ at no extra charge.[CC] JAMES UTHMEIER: Court Stays Bid to Certify Class Pending Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Florida Immigrant Coalition, et al., v. James Uthmeier, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-21524 (S.D. Fla., Filed April 2, 2025), the Hon. Judge Kathleen M. Williams entered an order staying motion for leave to file and staying Motion to Certify Class pending appeal. The nature of suit states Constitutionality of State Statutes. James Uthmeier is an American politician and lawyer serving as the 39th Florida attorney general since 2025.[CC] JANI-KING INTERNATIONAL: All Discovery Stayed in Cossette --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN COSSETTE, et al., v. JANI-KING INTERNATIONAL INC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01057-N (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David C. Godbey entered a class certification scheduling order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs must serve on defendants (but NOT file with the Court) their motion for class certification within 45 days of this Order. 2. Any motions for leave to join additional parties must be filed within 30 days of the date of this Order. Any motion for leave to amend pleadings under Rule 15(a) must be filed within 60 days of this Order. 3. All discovery except regarding class certification is stayed. 4. The parties may by written agreement alter the deadlines and limitations in this paragraph, without the need for court order. No continuance of the Submission Date will be granted due to agreed extensions of these deadlines. a. Class discovery begins as of the date of this Order; b. The defendants must designate experts, if any, 90 days after the date of this Order; c. The plaintiffs must designate rebuttal experts, if any, 120 days after the date of this Order. Jani-King is an American chain of commercial cleaning service franchise. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oEV3UT at no extra charge.[CC] JBS USA: $1.1MM Class Settlement in Brown Suit Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RON BROWN, and, MINKA GARMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JBS USA FOOD COMPANY, TYSON FOODS, INC., CARGILL INC., CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORP., HORMEL FOODS CORP., ROCHELLE FOODS, LLC, AMERICAN FOODS GROUP, LLC, TRIUMPH FOODS, LLC, SEABOARD FOODS, LLC, NATIONAL BEEF PACKING CO., LLC, SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC., SMITHFIELD PACKAGED MEATS CORP., AGRI BEEF CO., WASHINGTON BEEF, LLC, PERDUE FARMS, INC., GREATER OMAHA PACKING CO., INC., INDIANA PACKERS CORPORATION, QUALITY PORK PROCESSORS, INC., AGRI STATS, INC., and WEBBER, MENG, SAHL AND COMPANY, INC., d/b/a/ WMS & Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-02946-PAB-STV (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement with Agri Beef Co., Washington Beef, LLC, and Indiana Packers Corporation. The Court further entered an order that: -- The Plaintiffs shall send notice of the Agri Beef settlements and Indiana Packers settlement pursuant to the notice schedule approved by the Court on Oct. 10, 2025. -- The case and all related deadlines are stayed as to defendants Agri Beef Co., Washington Beef, LLC, and Indiana Packers Corporation. -- The plaintiffs' revised plan to provide notice to members of the settlement classes. The Plaintiffs bring this action individually "and on behalf of a class consisting of all persons employed by Defendants, their subsidiaries, and related entities at beef- and pork-processing plants in the continental United States from Jan. 1, 2000, to the present day." The Agri Beef settlement provides for a $1,400,000 settlement fund. The Indiana Packers settlement provides for a $1,100,000 settlement fund. The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Jan. 12, 2024. JBS offers wide range of meat, including lamb, pork, and beef products. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OUVQfh at no extra charge.[CC] JEFFREY FEWELL: Case Management Order Entered in Wertz Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY WERTZ, PATRICK HUGHEY, v. JEFFREY FEWELL, CHRIS CAIN, DAVID CODDINGTON, Case No. 2:23-cv-01045-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Wiegand entered a case management order: 1. The parties shall exchange initial disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) on or before Oct. 31, 2025. 2. The parties shall file any motion to add new parties on or before Dec. 15, 2025. The parties shall file any motion to amend the pleadings on or before Dec. 15, 2025. 3. The parties shall file a completed ADR stipulation on or before Oct. 20, 2025. The parties shall complete their ADR session by Jan. 22, 2026. 4. Class Certification Discovery including, but not limited to, discovery related to the John Doe Defendants, shall be completed on or before Jan. 15, 2026. 5. The briefing of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall proceed as follows: a. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be due on or before Feb. 12, 2025; b. The Defendant's response to the motion for class certification shall be due on or before March 5, 2025; and 6. A separate order addressing the timing and procedures for an evidentiary hearing, if necessary, on the Plaintiff's motion for Class Certification will issue after the close of briefing. 7. All fact discovery shall be completed on or before May 15, 2026. 8. A telephonic post-discovery status conference is scheduled for May 21, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1j3g7m at no extra charge.[CC] JOSEPHINE COUNTY, OR: Class Cert Bid Filing Changed to Feb. 9, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gabbert, et al., v. Josephine County, Case No. 1:23-cv-01434 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Karin J. Immergut entered an order adopting the case scheduling outlined by the parties with a modification as to the reply in support of class certification motion deadline as follows: -- The deadline to file motions to compel fact discovery is now December 19, 2025. -- The deadline to amend pleadings or join parties is January 9, 2026. -- Fact discovery is to be completed by January 9, 2025. -- Initial expert disclosures are due by February 9, 2026. -- Rebuttal expert disclosures are due by March 13, 2026. -- The deadline to file a class certification motion is February 9, 2026. -- The deadline to respond is March 13, 2026, and any reply in support of the class certification motion is due April 13, 2026. -- The last date to file any motion to compel expert discovery is March 20, 2026. -- Expert discovery is to be completed by April 3, 2026. -- Joint Statement of Agreed and Disputed Facts is due on April 17, 2026. -- Joint ADR Report and any dispositive motions are due no later than May 29, 2026. The nature of suit states Real Property – Foreclosure.[CC] JUAN BALTASAR: Gutierrez's Emergency TRO Granted ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NESTOR ESAI MENDOZA GUTIERREZ, for himself and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. JUAN BALTASAR, Warden, Denver Contract Detention Facility, Aurora, Colorado, in his official capacity, ROBERT GUADIAN, Director of the Denver Field Office for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity; TODD LYONS, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of the United States, in her official capacity; EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW; SIRCE OWEN, Acting Director for Executive Office of Immigration Review, in her official capacity; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; AURORA IMMIGRATION COURT; and, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, MARK BOWEN, Acting Warden, Case No. 1:25-cv-02720-RMR (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Regina Rodriguez entered an order granting Mr. Gutierrez's Emergency TRO. (1) The Defendants must release Mr. Gutierrez immediately until he receives a bond hearing before an IJ under section 1226(a), at which the Government shall bear the burden of justifying by clear and convincing evidence of dangerousness or flight risk. (2) Respondents are enjoined from removing Mr. Gutierrez and the class he proposes to represent from the United States or transferring them from the District of Colorado during the pendency of this action. (3) The Court will refrain from ruling on the Motion for Class Certification until the Court can hold a hearing on the matter and have its pending questions answered. A hearing on the matter will be scheduled for Nov. 21, 2025 at 1:00 p.m. The Court concluded that Petitioner has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is unlawfully detained under Section 1225(b)'s mandatory detention authority, and instead should be governed under Section 1226(a)'s discretionary detention scheme. Because he has also shown irreparable harm, and that balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor. On August 29, 2025, Mr. Gutierrez filed his original Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus through the immigration attorney who helped him file his U-Visa application in 2024. In it, he alleged a violation of 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a), a violation of the INA bond regulations, and a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ysQze1 at no extra charge.[CC] KAMAN & CUSIMANO: Class Settlement in Oie Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAHLON OIE, v. KAMAN & CUSIMANO, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00775-JPS (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge J.P. Stadtmueller entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the parties' class action settlement and class action certification. The Court Further entered an order that the Federal Rule of Procedure 23 class defined in Plaintiff's motion for class certification, ECF No. 19, be and the same is certified for settlement purposes pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1). The Court finds that this class meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3). The Rule 23 class is defined as follows: "All natural persons within the United States who were subjected to the Collection Activities of an alleged debt to whom Defendant sent an initial communication between June 21, 2023, and June 21, 2024, that was substantially similar or identical to the Collection Letter as defined in the Class Settlement Agreement ¶ 13(a)." The Plaintiff Mahlon Oie shall serve as representative of the Rule 23 class. In June 2024, the Plaintiff filed this putative class action against Kaman under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The Plaintiff claims that Defendant "unlawfully attempted to collect alleged debts due from Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers in violation of the" FDCPA. Kaman is a law firm that focuses on providing legal services to condominium and homeowner associations in Ohio and Kentucky. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fwlH64 at no extra charge.[CC] KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS: Court Certifies Janitor Class in "Barbosa" ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Waldisa De Alvarenga Barbosa, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 24-5633 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Henry of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification and to Issue Notice Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The court granted the motion as it pertains to conditional certification but denied without prejudice the motion as it pertains to the notice and dissemination plan. The court ordered the parties to meet and confer as to the contents of the plan and provide a jointly agreed-upon plan no later than November 18, 2025. The Plaintiffs filed their Collective Action and Class Action Complaint on October 23, 2024, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq.) and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (N.J. Stat. Ann. Sections 34:11-56a et seq.). The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant failed to pay them and other similarly situated employees across the country for overtime work performed as janitorial staff. According to the Motion, the Defendant has a contract with Amazon to provide janitorial services at various Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc. facilities across the United States. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant subcontracted with Majestic Quality Maintenance (later known as Magic Quality Maintenance, and both of which are referred to as MQM) to assist with the work at Amazon. According to the Plaintiffs, although it was impossible for any observer to tell which Amazon janitors received a paycheck from the Defendant as opposed to MQM, the MQM janitors did not receive pay for overtime. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant had actual notice of this failure to pay overtime as early as 2021. The Plaintiffs sought to conditionally certify the collective, defined as all persons throughout the United States who work, or worked, at an Amazon facility providing janitorial services on behalf of the Defendant and Majestic (and/or Magic) Quality Maintenance from October 24, 2021, through the date of Collective Certification who were compensated on an hourly basis but not paid overtime. The court noted that the FLSA authorizes collective actions by which employees may bring suit on behalf of themselves and others who are similarly situated. Unlike in a class action, similarly situated employees in a collective action must affirmatively opt in to be part of the lawsuit. The Third Circuit has authorized a two-step process for certifying a collective. The first step is conditional certification, in which a plaintiff must make a modest factual showing 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 modest factual showing standard is fairly lenient and typically results in a grant of conditional certification. As an initial matter, the Defendant argued that the court should employ a heightened standard of review because there has already been extensive discovery on the issue of certification. The Defendant requested a standard of review similar to that of final certification. The court declined to use a heightened standard of review and instead applied the typical modest factual showing standard. The court found that it is clear that discovery is still ongoing and the case is not ready for trial. The discovery in this case so far has been limited to the issue of conditional certification, further indicating that the lesser standard is appropriate. The Defendant argued that the Plaintiffs' theory must fail because the question of whether the Defendant is a joint employer necessitates a highly individualized, fact at each applicable Amazon facility. The court noted that although the Defendant may be correct that the circumstances vary from facility to facility, it is too early at this point to make the decision to deny certification on that basis. As the question of whether a party is a joint employer is better resolved at the final stage of certification, further discovery on the issue is necessary. The court determined that whether individualized determinations will predominate and render this case unsuitable for a collective action is more appropriately reviewed during step two of the certification process. The Defendant further argued that the court should deny conditional certification because the Plaintiffs have not identified a formal decision, policy, or plan applicable to all workers that indicates a failure to provide overtime. The court found that the Defendant's arguments that no such policy existed seem to rely on its argument that the Defendant instructed MQM to pay its employees properly and thus could not have had a practice of failing to pay the proposed collective overtime. That argument goes to the merits of the Plaintiff's joint employer theory of the case and is thus improper for the court to consider at this stage. The court was satisfied at this stage of the litigation that the Plaintiffs have made their modest factual showing that there is some sort of no overtime policy for MQM personnel at Amazon facilities. The Defendant additionally objected to the collective being conditionally certified at a nationwide level and instead asked the court to limit the geographic range of the collective. Upon reviewing the briefing and exhibits, the court was satisfied at this point in the litigation that the Plaintiffs have provided sufficient evidence to show that it is beyond mere speculation that there may be collective members nationwide who will advance similar claims. Accordingly, the court granted conditional certification of the collective as follows: all persons throughout the United States who work, or worked, at an Amazon facility providing janitorial services on behalf of the Defendant and Majestic (and/or Magic) Quality Maintenance from October 24, 2021 through the date of this Collective Certification who were compensated on an hourly basis but not paid overtime. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uRf3RO from PacerMonitor.com KNIGHT BARRY: Class Settlement in Raner Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Raner et al v. Knight Barry Title Inc. (RE:KNIGHTBARRYTITLE,INC. DATA INCIDENT LITIGATION), Case No. 2:24-cv-00211-LA (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Lynn Adelman entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and ORDERS as follows: 1. The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement Class defined as follows: "All individuals to whom Defendant sent notice of the Data Incident on Feb. 1, 2024." Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) all Persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the Class; (ii) the Judge assigned to evaluate the fairness of this Settlement; and (iii) any other 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, aiding, or abetting the Data Incident or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge. 2. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs should be appointed as the Class Representatives. Additionally, the Court finds that Nickolas J. Hagman of Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel, LLP, Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, and Kevin Laukaitis of Laukaitis Law, LLC should be appointed as Settlement Class Counsel. 3. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held on March 2, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. Knight provides residential & commercial title insurance and closing services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eSsgn5 at no extra charge.[CC] KNIGHT PORT: Class Cert Hearing in Aquita Set for Jan. 23, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jazlend Jalen Aquita Fenderson v. Knight Port Services, LLC et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-05358-WLH-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wesley Hsu entered a civil pretrial schedule and trial order as follows: Last Date to hear motion to amend Jan. 23, 2026 pleadings / add parties Fact discovery cut-off: May 14, 2026 Expert discovery cut-off: June 11, 2026 Last date to hear Daubert motions: July 24, 2026 Final pretrial conference: Sept. 18, 2026 A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5sxNZK at no extra charge.[CC] LCT OPCO: Court OK's Settlement in Paraham ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER PARAHAM v. LCT OPCO LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-03148-HB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Bartle entered a memorandum certifying Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective and the state law class and finds the terms of the settlement to be fair and reasonable. The court will approve the settlement in its entirety and will enter an order to this effect. Accordingly, the court finds that both the class components and the collective action components of the settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate. The settlement provides for compensation to two groups. The FLSA collective consists of: "All persons employed by the Defendant or its predecessor, La Colombe Torrefaction Inc., as hourly-paid production workers in Pennsylvania or Michigan at any time between July 18, 2021, and Oct. 13, 2024." The Rule 23 class encompasses hourly production workers in Pennsylvania during the same period. Accordingly, Pennsylvania workers are included in both the FLSA collective and the Rule 23 class. Workers in Michigan are only eligible for the FLSA collective. There are 850 FLSA collective members,2 of whom 260 individuals are also members of the Rule 23 class. The settlement fund provides a maximum pay out $450,000. Out of this fund, plaintiff seeks to compensate class members, and pay attorneys' fees, litigation and administrative expenses. He also requests a service fee. Counsel incurred a total of $5,291.60 in expenses. The bulk of those expenses reflect the net cost of mediation ($4,412.50). Lead counsel submitted an affidavit demonstrating support for the costs requested. Such expenses were reasonable and their payment will be approved. The Plaintiff also requests approval of $19,000 in settlement administration costs. The costs included preparing, printing, and mailing the Court-approved notices, conducting address verification and skip tracing, re-mailing notices where necessary, and processing claim forms. The court takes note that of the more than 800 class members, only 18 were undeliverable after skip tracing. Accordingly, such expenses were reasonable and their payment will be approved. In FLSA collective and class actions where no one has objected, higher service awards have been granted by this district. The court will approve the payment of $10,000 to Christopher Paraham. The Defendant manufactures and sells coffee and related products. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KppwtS at no extra charge.[CC] LITE STAR: Class Settlement in Chea Suit Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINNA CHEA, v. LITE STAR ESOP COMMITTEE, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00647-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Boone entered an order as follows: 1. The motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement is granted; 2. A Final Approval Hearing will be held on Jan. 21, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., 3. The following persons are conditionally certified as Class members: "All participants and beneficiaries of the Lite Star, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan at any time from its inception until Dec. 31, 2024 (unless they terminated employment without vesting), excluding individual Defendants and their family members or beneficiaries"; The members of the Settlement Class are the “Class members.” As an non-opt class, the proposed Class members shall have no right to exclude themselves from the Settlement Class, the Settlement, or the Final Judgment. If the Court approves the Settlement at the final hearing, each Class member will be bound to the Settlement and the Final Judgment. 4. The Court appoints Plaintiff Linna Chea as Class Representative, and the law firms Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC are appointed as Class Counsel; 5. The Court orders the following Implementation Schedule for further proceedings: a. Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees, expenses, and Class Representative service award shall be submitted on or before December 3, 2025; b. Any oppositions to the motion shall be filed on or before December 17, 2025; c. Objections to the Settlement from Class members shall be filed on or before January 5, 2026; d. The deadline for filing the motion for final approval shall be filed on or before January 9, 2026; and e. Any opposition to the motion for final approval shall be filed on or before January 16, 2026. The Plaintiff was a former employee of B-K Lighting, Inc. and a participant in the Lite Star Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP"). ESOP is a type of pension plan designed for employees to invest in the stock of its sponsor, B-K Lighting, pursuant to ERISA. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XhKGDs at no extra charge.[CC] LIVE NATION: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Skot Heckman, Luis Ponce, Jeanene Popp, and Jacob Roberts, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., and Ticketmaster LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00047-GW-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their application for leave to file under seal portions of the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of co-lead class counsel and the accompanying declarations of Timothy L. O'Mara and Bob Ritter in support of the Defendants' opposition. The Defendants request that the Court enter an Order permitting portions of the Opposition, the O'Mara Declaration, and the Ritter Declaration to be filed under seal, provided that redacted versions of those papers shall remain publicly accessible where practicable. Live is an American multinational entertainment company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p5yHwC at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Timothy L. O'Mara, Esq. Andrew M. Gass, Esq. Alicia R. Jovais, Esq. Samuel R. Jeffrey, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111-6538 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 Facsimile: (415) 395-8095 E-mail: tim.o'mara@lw.com andrew.gass@lw.com alicia.jovais@lw.com sam.jeffrey@lw.com LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Kearns Suit Wins Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY KEARNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC, Case No. 8:22-cv-01217-JWH-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Holcomb entered an order granting class certification. 1. loanDepot's motion to strike is denied. 2. Kearns's class certification motion is granted. 3. The parties are directed to meet and confer forthwith regarding the case schedule and to file no later than Nov. 7, 2025, a joint status report that provides their jointly proposed case schedule. If the parties cannot agree on a case schedule, then the parties are directed to provide the Court with the following: a. each party's respective proposed case schedule; b. each party's justification therefor; and c. each party's objections to the other party's proposed case schedule. 4. A scheduling conference is set for Nov. 21, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. Counsel for the parties are directed to appear in person at that date and time. In his operative Amended Complaint, Kearns asserts a single claim for relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Kearns moves to certify the following proposed class under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All persons in the United States whose cellular telephone number appears in "Exhibit A" of the Defendant's Court ordered supplemental discovery responses and who was called by the Defendant utilizing a prerecorded message on the date reflected in "Exhibit A."" LoanDepot is a nonbank holding company which sells mortgage and non-mortgage lending products. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KyG0X4 at no extra charge.[CC] LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Filing for Class Cert. Due Jan. 12, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Civelli, et al., v. LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01739 (D. Or., Filed Nov. 24, 2023), the Hon. Judge Adrienne Nelson entered an order granting in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend Discovery & PTO Deadlines: -- Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due by Jan. 12, 2026. -- Defendants' response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due by March 2, 2026. -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support of the motion for class certification is due by March 30, 2026. -- The deadline to complete fact discovery is June 29, 2026. -- The deadline to exchange initial expert reports (simultaneous) is July 27, 2026. -- The deadline to exchange rebuttal expert reports (simultaneous) is Aug. 24, 2026 -- The deadline to complete expert discovery is Sept. 28, 2026. -- The deadline to file dispositive motions is Nov. 9, 2026. -- The deadline to file a joint alternate dispute resolution report is Nov. 16, 2026. The nature of suit states Contract related violations. Lumen is an American telecommunications company.[CC] LUXURBAN HOTELS: Bid to Stay ZCAP Action Tossed ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZCAP EQUITY FUND et al., v. LUXURBAN HOTELS INC. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01030-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul Engelmayer entered an order denying the motion by individual Defendants for a stay of this action as to the claims against them. Accordingly, the individual Defendants have not shown that allowing litigation to proceed as to them would negatively impact LuxUrban's estate. The individual Defendants' other arguments of harm to the estate are not persuasive. They first argue that adverse rulings as to them could be imputed to LuxUrban under principles of collateral estoppel. The Second Circuit has foreclosed this as a basis for extending a bankruptcy stay. Second, they note, LuxUrban's bylaws obligate the company to indemnify the individual defendants for the costs of defending this action. But those obligations do not stand to have any consequence in the foreseeable future. As defense counsel acknowledged, the costs of defending this action will be covered by insurance indefinitely. And the individual defendants have not shown that continued litigation as to them will otherwise cost LuxUrban monetarily or impede its reorganization. The Court thus denies the individual defendants' motion to extend the automatic bankruptcy stay to the claims against them. LuxUrban specializes in acquiring long-term operating rights for entire hotels through Master Lease Agreements. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yggeFY at no extra charge.[CC] MARION COUNTY, OR: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Feb. 9, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sawyer, et al., v. Marion County, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01971 (D. Or., Filed Dec. 28, 2023), the Hon. Judge Karin J. Immergut entered an order adopting the case scheduling outlined by the parties with a modification as to the reply in support of class certification motion deadline as follows: -- The deadline to file motions to compel fact discovery is now December 19, 2025. -- The deadline to amend pleadings or join parties is January 9, 2026. -- Fact discovery is to be completed by January 9, 2025. -- Initial expert disclosures are due by February 9, 2026. -- Rebuttal expert disclosures are due by March 13, 2026. -- The deadline to file a class certification motion is February 9, 2026. -- The deadline to respond is March 13, 2026, and any reply in support of the class certification motion is due April 13, 2026. -- The last date to file any motion to compel expert discovery is March 20, 2026. -- Expert discovery is to be completed by April 3, 2026. -- Joint Statement of Agreed and Disputed Facts is due on April 17, 2026. -- Joint ADR Report and any dispositive motions are due no later than May 29, 2026. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC] MARK OLSON: Court Certifies Class & Subclasses in Mirabelli Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH MIRABELLI, and LORI ANN WEST, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, et al., v. MARK OLSON, in his official capacity as President of the EUSD Board of Education, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00768-BEN-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Roger Benitez entered an order granting class certification. The following class and subclasses are certified in accordance with Rule 23(b)(2): "All individuals who are participating or will participate in California's public education system, whether as employees or parents/guardians of students, without having to subject themselves to Parental Exclusion Policies, and (1) Are employees who object to complying with Parental Exclusion Policies; (2) Are employees who submit a request for a religious exemption or opt-out to complying with Parental Exclusion Policies; (3) Are parents/guardians who object to having Parental Exclusion Policies applied against them and have children who are attending California public schools; or (4) Are parents/guardians who submit a request for a religious exemption or opt-out to having Parental Exclusion Policies applied against them and have children who are attending California public schools." The Plaintiffs seek to certify this civil rights action as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and (b)(1)(A). They seek certification of a plaintiff class with four subclasses and to appoint the plaintiffs as class representatives and counsel as counsel for the class. The Defendants oppose class certification focusing on factual differences among the putative class members and policy variations among the state public school system’s many local arms. The motion is granted. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of adults who teach in, or have children in, California public schools and are adversely affected by school system policies that prevent teachers from informing parents about their child's gender identification while at school. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vXfmnY at no extra charge.[CC] MARUCHAN INC: Mora Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled Edgar Mora, on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Maruchan, Inc., a California corporation; Real Time Staffing Services, LLC, a Georgia corporation; Employbridge, LLC, a California corporation; and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 30-2025-01499351-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Orange to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on October 20, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-02378 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's first amended complaint alleges 10 purported causes of action for: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to provide meal periods or premium pay in lieu thereof; (4) failure to provide rest periods or premium pay in lieu thereof; (5) failure to provide recovery periods; (6) failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; (7) failure to provide and maintain accurate records; (8) failure to pay wages when due; (9) civil penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act; and (10) unfair business practices. Maruchan, Inc. provides food products. The Company offers dry macaroni, spaghetti, vermicelli, and noodles.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew C. Kane, Esq. Amy E. Beverlin, Esq. Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4508 Telephone: (310) 820-8800 Facsimile: (310) 820-8859 E-mail: mkane@bakerlaw.com abeverlin@bakerlaw.com ksakaue@bakerlaw.com - and - Sylvia J. Kim, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Transamerica Pyramid 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111-2806 Telephone: (415) 659-2600 Facsimile: (415) 659-2601 E-mail: sjkim@bakerlaw.com MAURICIO RAULD: Goldovsky Bid for Class Certification Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEX GOLDOVSKY, et al., v. MAURICIO J. RAULD, et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00159-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Alan D Albright entered an order adopting Mag. Judge's report and recommendation: The Court further entered an order that Plaintiffs' objections are overruled and the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied. The report and recommendation was filed on Sept. 26, 2025. Judge Gilliland recommended that the District Court deny the motion for class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qRklZi at no extra charge.[CC] MCCONWAY & TORLEY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Santana Says ---------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR SANTANA, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MCCONWAY & TORLEY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01631 (W.D. Pa., October 20, 2025) is a collective action instituted by Plaintiff as a result of Defendant's alleged unlawful practices and policies in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The complaint alleges that Defendant fails to pay Plaintiff and other hourly, non-exempt employees wages for all hours worked, including overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all the hours they worked over 40 each workweek. The Plaintiff was hired as a welder at Defendant's Kutztown, Pennsylvania location from approximately April 2023 to January 2025. McConway & Torley, LLC manufactures steel products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com MCKESSON MEDICAL: Guzman Seeks More Time to File Class Cert ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERTHA GABRIELA GUZMAN MORALES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:25-cv-00450-MWC-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order for a continuance of the Last Date to file Motion for Class Certification to March 2, 2026, approximately 30 days after fact discovery cuts off. The Plaintiff requests this Court to continue the last date to file motion for class certification to provide the Plaintiff with additional time to prepare and file her motion. For multiple reasons, including but not limited to the dilatory tactics and gamesmanship Defendant has employed with Plaintiff's discovery, the Defendant's persistent need to meet and confer via telephone and with specific attorneys, an administrative error on the part of Plaintiff's Counsel, and the fact that all succeeding dates of this Court's March 27, 2025 Civil Trial Order would remain feasible, good cause exists in support of this request. On Dec. 23, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino. The Complaint alleged eight individual and class causes of action pursuant to the California Labor Code and one cause of action pursuant to the California Business and Professions Code. McKesson is an American publicly traded company that distributes pharmaceuticals and provides health information technology. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U6Lh9D at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Allen Feghali, Esq. S. Phillip Song, Esq. Stanley J. Park, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232- 3125 E-mail: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com afeghali@moonlawgroup.com psong@moonlawgroup.com spark@moonlawgroup.com MDL 3035: Bid for More Time to File Opposition OK'd in Labor Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: AME Church Employee Retirement Fund Litigation (MDL 3035), Case No. 1:22-md-03035 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order granting Symetra's unopposed motion for extension of time to file opposition to the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=apiPNm at no extra charge.[CC] MENKE INC: Day Seeks FLSA Collective Notice to Employees -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tayler B. Day individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated as members of the Collective as permitted under the Fair Labor Standards Act and as a Class representative for the IWML Class, v. Menke Incorporated d/b/a Little Red Wagon and/or Menke Incorporated d/b/a Little Red Wagon day care center and Janene Gunn Purdon-Menki, as an individual under FLSA and Illinois Wage Laws as well as under the Illinois Whistleblower Act, Case No. 3:24-cv-03222-CRL-DJQ (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order The Plaintiff's burden at this stage is lenient and easily met. Attached to Plaintiff’s Memorandum are the Affidavit/Declaration of Plaintiff who worked for Defendant. The Plaintiff describes her duties and testifies as to other similarly situated employees. This sworn Declaration provides a sufficient factual description of the uniformity of treatment of Plaintiff’s and members of the putative class endured as a result of Defendants’ policies and procedures based on Defendants' policy and procedures which apply to all employees of Defendant. For these reasons, Plaintiff requests that the Court: (1) Certifying the requested collective and allow an opt-in period of sixty (60) days, beginning from the date of mailing/posting and other means of communications; (2) Directing the Defendant to produce the full names, aliases, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and last date(s) of all potential Collective members, and the last known work and home physical and email addresses and phone numbers of employees who worked for the Defendant from Aug. 16, 2024 to the present, no later than two weeks after the date of the entry of the Order; (3) Approving a notice; and (4) Approving transmittal of the Notice to members of the class via a) US Mail, b) Posted Message at the Defendant's work site(s) c) Email. The Plaintiffs' Complaint seeks recovery of unpaid overtime pay based on the Defendant's policy of paying its hourly employees straight-time pay for overtime hours and failing to pay overtime hours based on the Defendants' policy of not paying for training/office time of hourly employees (and/or for not paying for any overtime based on Defendant providing insurance to some employees, rather than paying overtime. Little is a fully licensed early education center providing care for children 6 weeks to 15 years old. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gi4H4y at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Ireland, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND 636 Spruce Street South Elgin IL 60177 Telephone: (630) 464-9675 Facsimile: (630) 206-0889 E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com METROPOLITAN LEARNING: Heras Bid for Atty's Fees Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sandra Heras, v. Metropolitan Learning Institute, Inc. and Boris Davidoff, Case No. 1:19-cv-02694-DG-PK (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Diane Gujarati entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's March 14, 2025, letter motion for attorney fees and expenses. The Plaintiff is awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $65,299.28 and costs in the amount of $5,714.62, for a total award of $71,013.90, to be paid by the Defendants jointly and severally. The Plaintiff has not submitted any invoices or other documentation in support of these expenses and, accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met her burden of demonstrating that these expenses are reasonable. The Court awards Plaintiff $5,714.62 in costs. On May 7, 2019, the Plaintiff commenced this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") and the New York Labor Law (the "NYLL") against the Defendants. Metropolitan is a private, non-profit, charitable educational institution. A copy of the Court's memorandum & order dated Oct. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iB4KrG at no extra charge.[CC] MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC: Thomas Allowed Leave to File FAC ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON THOMAS, et al., v. MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC AUTOMOTIVE AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00422-DRC (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Cole entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file first amendment complaint. The Court further entered an order: -- preliminarily certifying the class as defined in the settlement agreement, -- preliminarily approving the proposed settlement agreement; -- directing the parties to submit within five days a revised notice form consistent with the above; -- approving distribution of notice (once revised and approved by the Court) in accordance with the notice plan. -- approving the use of the proposed claim form; -- provisionally appointing Jason Thomas and Joseph Horner as class representatives; -- provisionally appointing J. Corey Asay, from HKM Employment Attorneys LLP, as counsel for the class; -- provisionally appointing ILYM Group, Inc. as settlement administrator; In sum, the Court finds that Rule 23(a)’s requirements are met for provisional certification purposes. The proposed settlement agreement generally defines the class as "All Mason, Ohio Settlement Class Employees and Maysville, Kentucky Settlement Class Employees." The former group includes "all non-exempt employees of [Mitsubishi] who worked at its facility in Mason, Ohio at any point from October 24, 2021, to May 11, 2024." And the latter group likewise comprises all non-exempt employees who worked at the Maysville, Kentucky, facility during that same time period. Mitsubishi is a large manufacturer and seller of electrical and electronic products and systems for automobiles. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Oct. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=51LM3j at no extra charge.[CC] NATUROPATHICA HOLISTIC: Bid to Stay Class Cert. Motions Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as El Sayed v. Naturopathica Holistic Health Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-00846 (M.D. Fla., Filed April 4, 2025), the Hon. Judge Steven D. Merryday entered an order denying the Defendants' Time Sensitive Motion to Stay Discovery and Class Certification Motions Pending Resolution of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. "Normally, the pendency of a motion to dismiss... will not justify a unilateral motion to stay discovery pending resolution of [the dismissal] motion," and -- absent "unusual circumstances" -- such stay requests "are rarely granted." The Defendants have not met their burden of showing that a stay is warranted here. Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. Fla. 1997) (noting that the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating a stay of discovery is justified) (citation omitted). A preliminary review of Defendants' motion to dismiss does not clearly reveal it to be meritorious or case dispositive. See id. at 652-53 (observing that a court reviewing a motion to stay discovery should "'take a preliminary peek' at the merits of the motion... to see if it appears to be clearly meritorious and truly case dispositive"). To the contrary, the parties' briefing indicates that courts have recently reached different conclusions as to whether Section 227(c) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act encompasses text messages. The nature of suit states ]Statutory Actions. Naturopathica provides holistic wellness solutions and spa experiences.[CC] NCAA: Robinson Seeks to Alter Judgment -------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENARD ROBINSON; BRAYLON EDWARDS; MICHAEL MARTIN; SHAWN CRABLE, Individually and on behalf of themselves and former University of Michigan football players similarly situated, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION aka "NCAA"; BIG TEN NETWORK "aka" BTN; BIG TEN CONFERENCE, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-12355-TGB-KGA (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to alter or amend Judgment pursuant to fed. r. civ. p. 59(e). The Plaintiffs sought concurrence in the relief requested in this motion from Defendants. Concurrence was denied. The Plaintiffs submit that dismissal of this case is a manifest injustice to them. The case is potentially a historic one. It seeks to right wrongs committed for more than a half century, and, as such, painstaking research went into the preparation of a Complaint that correctly plead to avoid dismissal at any stage, but most certainly at the initial stage before discovery could be conducted. National is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletics. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6yATvn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James R. Acho, Esq. Ethan Vinson, Esq. Kevin J. Campbell, Esq. CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO, PLC 17436 College Parkway, 3rd Floor Livonia, MI 48152 Telephone: (734) 261-2400 Facsimile: (248) 261-4510 E-mail: jacho@cmda-law.com NCR CORPORATION: Mirabal Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORGE MIRABAL and ALAN SCHOENBECK, individually, and on behalf of the NCR Savings Plan, v. NCR CORPORATION PLAN ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE, Case No. 1:24-cv-00765-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certifying the following class under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(1): "All persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the NCR Savings Plan from Dec. 13, 2016, through the present." The Plaintiffs also ask the Court appoint the Plaintiffs Jorge Mirabal and Alan Schoenbeck as class representatives and Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A., Morgan & Morgan, P.A., and McKay Law, LLC, as class counsel. The Plaintiffs meet the requirements for class certification of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) as well as those of Rule 23(b)(1)(A), and 23(b)(1)(B). NCR is a software, consulting and technology company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RQd0tW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com - and - Marc R. Edelman, Esq. Jeremy R. Stevens, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com jstephens@forthepeople.com - and - Michael C. Mckay, Esq. MCKAY LAW, LLC 5635 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 170 Scottsdale, AZ 85250 Telephone: (480) 681-7000 E-mail: mmckay@mckaylaw.us NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE: Fact Discovery Due Dec. 20 -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MANUEL ANGEL CALDERON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE INC. and PATRICK CLARKE, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:24-cv-05442-ALC-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered a revised civil case discovery plan and scheduling order: a. Fact discovery pertaining to the certified section 216(b) collective and pre-class certification discovery, including all depositions of fact and Rule 30(b) (6) witnesses shall be completed by Dec. 10, 2025. b. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification by no later than Jan. 23, 2026, with the Defendants' opposition due Feb. 23, 2026, and the Plaintiffs' reply due March 5, 2026; c. Experts shall be disclosed no later than 30 days following the Court's decision on the class certification motion; The status conference scheduled for Oct. 20, 2025 is adjourned to Dec. 15, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. The parties' joint pre-conference update letter is due no later than Dec. 8, 2025. Network is an integrated, full-service partner that provides outsourced turnkey solutions and complete infrastructure asset management. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AonCgr at no extra charge.[CC] NEVADA GOLD: Plaintiffs' Filing for Class Reply Extended to Nov. 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE WIEBEN and AUSTIN STOCKSTILL, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. NEVADA GOLD MINES LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00575-MMD-CSD (D. Nev.), the Court entered an order granting stipulation for extension of time for the Plaintiffs to file reply in further support of motion for conditional certification and notice: The Plaintiffs Kyle Wieben and Austin Stockstill, individually and for others similarly situated, by and through their undersigned counsel of record, and Defendant Nevada Gold Mines LLC (NGM), by and through its undersigned counsel of record, stipulate and agree that the responsive deadline for the Plaintiffs' reply in further support of motion for conditional certification and notice, which is currently set for Oct. 21, 2025, be extended until Nov. 4, 2025. Accordingly, the extension is needed to permit counsel for Plaintiffs to review NGM's response and extensive records attached as exhibits to prepare an adequate reply based on all information obtained. This is the first stipulation for extension of time to file this reply. This stipulation was prepared by counsel for the Plaintiffs with the consent of the Defendant and is made in good faith and not for the purposes of delay. Nevada is an American gold mining company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TDdDVR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Esther C. Rodriguez, Esq. RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICES, P.C. 10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150 Las Vegas, NV 89145 Telephone: (702) 320-8400 Facsimile: (702) 320-8401 E-mail: esther@rodriguezlaw.com - and – Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and – Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Travis J. Grefenstette, 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 tgrefenstette@mybackwages.com The Defendant is represented by: Anthony L. Hall, Esq. Jonathan A. McGuire, Esq. SIMONS HALL JOHNSTON PC 690 Sierra Rose Dr., Reno, NV 89511 E-mail: AHall@SHJNevada.com JMcGuire@SHJNevada.com - and – Stephen Q. Wood, Esq. Alexander S. Allred, Esq. Anthony L. Hall, Esq. Jonathan A. McGuire, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 2755 E. Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 250 Salt Lake City, Utah 84121 E-mail: stephenwood@quinnemanuel.com alexallred@quinnemanuel.com NEW HAMPSHIRE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Clark, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. JOHN M. FORMELLA, in his official capacity only as Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire, Case No. 1:25-cv-00379-PB-AJ (D.N.H.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting assented-to motion to extend time to Dec. 12, 2025, to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. The Defendant is in the process of working with counsel to prepare a responsive pleading to the Plaintiff's Complaint, and requires additional time to compile a responsive pleading to ECF 4. Accordingly, the Defendant requests that his deadline to respond to the Plaintiff's ECF 4 be extended to align with Defendant's Dec. 1, 2025 deadline to respond to the Plaintiff's Complaint. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NCQU9o at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Shawna Bentley, Esq. NH DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1 Granite Place South Concord, NH 03301 Telephone: (603) 271-6836 E-mail: shawna.bentley@doj.nh.gov NEW YORK: Class Certification Bid Held in Abeyance -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dunn, et al., v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Case No. 9:25-cv-01242 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Sept. 8, 2025), the Hon. Judge Mae A. D'Agostino entered an order granting Letter Request to hold the class certification and appointment of class counsel motion in abeyance until an answer is filed. The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights. NYS DOCCS is "responsible for the care, custody, and treatment" of the people held in the state prisons.[CC] NEWPORT GROUP: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Opposition --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ewing v. Newport Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02136 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order granting Symetra's unopposed motion for extension of time to file opposition to the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. Newport operates as retirement services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tTtqYR at no extra charge.[CC] NORTH CAROLINA: Plaintiff's Bid for Class Cert Partly OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE 1, a minor by and through his natural parent and guardian JANE DOE 1, et al., v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00017-CCE-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Catherine Eagles entered an order that: 1. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted in part and the following class is certified: "All pre-adjudication juveniles who are currently, or in the future will be, detained in the Cabarrus Juvenile Detention Center." 2. The plaintiffs, John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, are appointed as class representatives. 3. The Plaintiffs' counsel, Axton Crolley, Donna Tillis, Matthew Lindenbaum, Soren Young, Yasmeen Ebbini, Robert Lindholm, and Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP and Michelle Duprey and Law Office of Michelle Duprey are appointed as class counsel. 4. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification is otherwise denied. 5. The motion for leave to supplement the record is granted and the Court has considered the proffered materials. The Court will certify the amended Cabarrus Class under Rule 23(b)(2). Including only pre-adjudication juveniles is appropriate because the Cabarrus facility houses almost entirely pre-adjudication juveniles, including the named plaintiffs, and the constitutional standards differ for pre- and post-adjudication children. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants' room confinement policies and practices violate their Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights. The North Carolina is an umbrella agency that carries out many of the state's law enforcement, emergency response and homeland security functions. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Oct. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7AD8fu at no extra charge.[CC] NORTH MEMORIAL: Bid to Compel Discovery Granted in Kaliher Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Heidi Kaliher and Tracey Knight, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. North Memorial Health Care, d/b/a North Memorial Health, Case No. 0:23-cv-00440-KMM-DLM (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Micko entered an order granting in part the Defendant's motion to compel discovery. To the extent that additional production of discovery is ordered above, the parties must produce it within 21 days of the Order. The Plaintiffs shall supplement their answers to the Defendant's Interrogatory No. 3 to include email addresses, devices, and media used for health-care related purposes. The Plaintiffs shall supplement their answers to the Defendant's Interrogatory No. 6. The Plaintiffs shall supplement their answers to the Defendant's Interrogatory No. 10 to include information relating to their health status, North Memorial, or any other health care-related issues. The Plaintiffs shall supplement their answers to Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 17 to identify any application downloaded that was used for health-care related matters. The Plaintiffs shall produce internet browsing history relating to their physical or mental health status, status as a patient at North, or any other health care related issues, pursuant to Request for Production No. 11. The case is about privacy rights and internet tracking. The Plaintiffs Gregg Lurie, Heidi Kaliher, and Tracy Knight, filed suit against Defendant North Memorial Health Care for violations of state and federal law stemming from North's alleged harvesting and sharing of the Plaintiffs' sensitive medical information with third parties. North provides primary care, urgent care, specialty care and emergency services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N8ni7t at no extra charge.[CC] ODD CONSTRUCTION: Faces Dutan Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- PAOLA MARINA ROTO DUTAN, KEVIN MAURICIO GAHUI GAGUY, CARLOS ARMANDO GAHUI GAGUY, ANGEL ENRIQUE GAHUI YAMBA, ANGEL LEONARDO CHAFLA YAMBA and JOSE LUIS DUTAN PARAPI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ODD CONSTRUCTION INC., DHH CONSTRUCTION NYC INC., INDUSTRY DRYWALL CORPORATION and NESTOR TOBIAS FAJARDO PAREDES, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05831 (E.D.N.Y., October 17, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to pay wages owed on a weekly basis in which his wages were earned, failure to provide wage statements, and failure to furnish written wage notice. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as construction workers. Odd Construction Inc. is a construction company with a principal place of business in Queens, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 OPENAI INC: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Multi-District Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- Eileen McDermott of IPWatchdog.com reports that a New York judge ruled on Monday, October 27, that OpenAI cannot stop a consolidated, multi-district class action brought against by dozens of authors for direct copyright infringement by the outputs of its large language model (LLM), ChatGPT. OpenAI argued that the plaintiffs had failed to allege substantial similarity between the works and ChatGPT's outputs, but Judge Sidney Stein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York said that "[a] more discerning observer could reasonably conclude that the allegedly infringing outputs are substantially similar to plaintiffs' copyrighted works." The "more discerning observer" test applies when the works in question "contain both copyrightable elements -- such as characters, plot, and setting . . . -- and non-copyrightable elements -- such as stock themes, stock characters, scenes a faire, and abstract ideas," explained the court. Under that test, "the relevant question is whether there exists 'substantial similarity between those elements, and only those elements, that provide copyrightability to the allegedly infringed [work].'" The opinion also said in a footnote however that it would have reached the same conclusion applying the less refined "ordinary observer" test. The plaintiffs included examples incorporated by reference from the Consolidated Class Action Complaint in their opposition to the motion to dismiss of allegedly infringing outputs such as summaries of "A Game of Thrones" author George R.R. Martin's works which, despite not recounting "'[e]very intricate plot twist and element of character development' . . . most certainly attempts at abridgment or condensation of some of the central copyrightable elements of the original works such as setting, plot, and characters." Judge Stein replicated the ChatGPT output of several summaries of Martin's works and concluded that "the summary conveys the overall tone and feel of the original work by parroting the plot, characters, and themes of the original." Stein also addressed in a footnote OpenAI's argument that its outputs are "analogous to the summaries of news articles that the Court determined were not substantially similar to copyrighted works in its decision in N.Y. Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp., 777 F. Supp. 3d 283 (S.D.N.Y. 2025)," distinguishing the outputs in N.Y. Times because they "merely summarized non-copyrightable elements of the original news article," such as facts, and "differed 'in style, tone, length, and sentence structure'" from the originals. Stein ultimately found that a reasonable jury could undoubtedly determine that that these outputs are "substantially similar to Martin's original work based on the output's incorporation of such copyrightable elements of Martin's original work as setting, plot, and characters," and said the Martin examples were sufficient to defeat OpenAI's motion to dismiss. Stein concluded by clarifying that the opinion does not represent a view as to whether the outputs are protected under the doctrine of fair use, which courts generally do not address until the summary judgment phase. [GN] OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Liberty Seeks to Certify Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LIBERTY CAPITAL GROUP, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS INC., OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., and OPPENHEIMER ASSET MANAGEMENT INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-04822-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 1. Certifying a class action on behalf of the following class: "All participants in the Advantage Bank Deposit Program from March 17, 2022 through the present."; 2. Appointing Plaintiff Liberty Capital Group to serve as Class Representative; and 3. Appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class Counsel. Oppenheimer is an American multinational independent investment bank and financial services company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iSx0kg at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew T. Rees, Esq. Scott I. Dion, Esq. Alex Kaplan, Esq. Luke Goveas, Esq. Stephen R. Astley, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 E-mail: sastley@rgrdlaw.com arees@rgrdlaw.com sdion@rgrdlaw.com akaplan@rgrdlaw.com lgoveas@rgrdlaw.com - and - Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP 450 Seventh Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10123 Telephone: (212) 279-5050 E-mail: jfruchter@aftlaw.com ORRSTOWNBANK: Filing for Class Cert. in Pryde Due Feb. 6, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON PRYDE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ORRSTOWNBANK, Case No. 1:25-cv-00667-KMN (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the motion and extending the deadline for the Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification up to and including Feb. 6, 2026. The Plaintiff requests the extension of this deadline to allow adequate time for the Court to decide the pending motion to dismiss. Moreover, because discovery in this matter is stayed, the Plaintiff has been unable to obtain the discovery required to support his request for class certification. The extension requested herein is brought in good faith and not for the purpose of delay. No party will be prejudiced by the granting of this extension. On March 6, 2025, the Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint against Orrstown Bank in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, styled Aaron Pryde v. Orrstown Bank, Docket No. 2025-CV-01941. On April 14, 2025, the Defendant removed the action to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On June 13, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On July 11, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d8XoBF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY 1650 Market Street One Liberty Place 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575-3895 E-mail: phoward@smbb.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JENNINGS &EARLEYPLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 E-mail: chris@jefirm.com PANDA RESTAURANT: Thorne Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Thorne, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.; PANDA EXPRESS, INC.; ANDREW J.C. CHERNG; and PEGGY TSIANG CHERNG, both jointly and severally, Case No. 2:25-cv-01650 (W.D. Pa., Oct. 21, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid wages, overtime compensation, and other relief arising from Defendants' uniform and unlawful pay practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL"). In March 2025, Panda issued a new Employee Handbook guaranteeing non -exempt workers double their regular rate of pay for shifts exceeding 12 hours per day or 8 hours on a seventh consecutive workday. Despite this written promise, Panda never applied the "double regular rate" and also failed to include those higher-rate earnings when calculating overtime pay, resulting in widespread underpayment of wages in violation of the FLSA, PMWA, WPCL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is currently employed as a Manager at Panda Express. Panda Group owns and operates Panda Express restaurants throughout the United States, including multiple locations within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Bahorich, Esq. Joshua P. Ward, Esq. Alexander C. DiBucci, Esq. J.P. WARD & ASSOCIATES, LLC The Rubicon Building 201 South Highland Avenue, Suite 201 Pittsburgh, PA 15206 Phone: 412-545-3015 Email: jbahorich@jpward.com PAY LESS REALTY: Torres Sues Over Discriminative Property --------------------------------------------------------- Julia Torres, and other similar situated v. PAY LESS REALTY LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company, d/b/a PAY LESS REALTY, and YOUNG Y. CHA and MI H. CHA, Case No. 2:25-cv-16846-CCC-SDA (D.N.J., 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"), anf the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD") 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 has multiple sclerosis, that prevents her from walking and climbing steps, and uses a wheelchair as her primary means of mobility. PAY LESS REALTY LLC, is the owner, lessee and/or operator of the real property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Mirel, Esq. THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A. 18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214 Aventura, Florida 33160 phone: (305) 949-7777 Facsimile: (305) 704-3877 Email: rjm@weitzfirm.com PEOPLEGURU HOLDINGS: Vasquez Files Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peopleguru Holdings Inc. The case is styled as Iris Vasquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Peopleguru Holdings Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-02871 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 21, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. PeopleGuru -- https://www.peopleguru.com/ -- develops and supports cloud-based HR, Payroll, and Benefits Management Software.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (954) 647-1866 Email: mweekes@milberg.com PERMOBIL INC: Garofalo Sues Over Deceptive Sale & Defective Devices ------------------------------------------------------------------- M. Claudia Garofalo and Thaddeus Hardy, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PERMOBIL, INC., MAX MOBILITY LLC, and UNITED SEATING AND MOBILITY, LLC D/B/A NUMOTION, Case No. 2:25-cv-02080-CJB-JVM (E.D. La., Oct. 3, 2025), is brought relating to Defendants' false, misleading, unfair, and deceptive sale of defective devices intended to control the speed of external motors added to manual wheelchairs. The Defendants sold the SpeedControl Dial in a package with the SmartDrive for thousands of dollars, and also sold the SpeedControl Dial itself for hundreds of dollars. The Defendants charged a price premium for the SmartDrive and/or SpeedControl Dial by touting the unrivaled control the SpeedControl Dial affords wheelchair users to easily change speed without coming to a complete stop. The Defendants' promotions were false and deceptive because the SpeedControl Dial did not work as advertised, warranted, and intended. To the contrary, the SpeedControl Dial was defectively designed, manufactured, and labeled. Due to these serious and undisclosed defects, the SpeedControl Dial did not work as advertised, warranted, and intended. These redhibitory defects in the SpeedControl Dial rendered them inherently flawed, defective, non-merchantable, unfit for ordinary and intended use, and unreasonably dangerous. The SpeedControl Dial was completely unaccompanied by adequate warnings about these defects. The Defendants concealed these redhibitory defects from Plaintiffs and other class members until very recently. In August 2025, Defendants finally disclosed the inherent design and manufacturing defects for the SpeedControl Dial. Due to these serious and unreasonably dangerous defects, they also announced they would no longer sell the SpeedControl Dial, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs and other class members are wheelchair users. The Defendants manufacture or sell the SmartDrive MX2+ Power Assist Device.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew D. Bizer, Esq. Garret S. Dereus, Esq. Eva M. Kalikoff, Esq. BIZER & DEREUS, LLC 3319 St. Claude Ave. New Orleans, LA 70117 Phone: 504-619-9999 Fax: 504-948-9996 Email: andrew@bizerlaw.com gdereus@bizerlaw.com eva@bizerlaw.com - and - Ruben Honik, Esq. David J. Stanoch, Esq. HONIK LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: 267-435-1300 Email: ruben@honiklaw.com david@honiklaw.com PIER 4 LLC: Cheli Sues Over Inaccessible Property ------------------------------------------------- Charlene Cheli, an individual, on her own behalf and on the behalf of all other similarly situated v. PIER 4, L.L.C., a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-16787 (D.N.J., Oct. 21, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD"). The Plaintiff encounters architectural barriers at many of the places that she visits. Seemingly trivial architectural features such as parking spaces, curb ramps, and door handles are taken for granted by the non-disabled but, when improperly designed or implemented, can be arduous and even dangerous to those in wheelchairs. The Plaintiff has visited the Property, and been a guest, on several occasions over the years – both before and after becoming a disabled person and requiring full-time use of her wheelchair. Her last visit to the Property occurred on or about June 20, 2025, when she visited the Property as a prospective bone fide patron with the intent to avail herself of the goods and services offered to the public within but found that it was rife with ADA violations and barriers to access. The ADA has been law for over 30 years and the Property has already been the subject of an ADA claim, and yet the Property remains non-compliant. Thus, the Plaintiff has actual notice and reasonable grounds to believe that she will continue to be subjected to discrimination by the Defendant. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing, and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendant's non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the Property as described but not necessarily limited to the barriers she has personally experienced which are listed in Paragraph 25 of this complaint, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a mobility impaired persons. BROADWAY SQUARE REALTY, LLC, owns and/or operates a place of public accommodation, in this instance a shopping center/plaza.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N. East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Phone: (609) 319-5399 Email: js@shadingerlaw.com PRIME HEALTHCARE: Faces Williams Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- DEBBIE WILLIAMS, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES - SAN DIMAS, LLC d/b/a SAN DIMAS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV30419 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., October 17, 2025) is a class action complaint against SDCH to challenge pervasive and systemic violations of the California Labor Code and related statutes by SDCH in the operation of its hospital business in California. This action seeks to redress the unlawful and unfair wage and hour practices to which Plaintiff Williams and the other patient care workers have been subjected during their employment with SDCH, including, inter alia, the failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods and rest periods; unlawful withholding and unauthorized deductions from wages; violation of paid sick leave requirements; and failure to provide complete, accurate, and timely wage statements, records, and final pay. Plaintiff Williams was employed by SDCH as a non-exempt monitor tech and unit secretary from approximately April 2025 to July 2025, and was paid at a rate of approximately $23 per hour, plus shift differentials. Prime Healthcare Services operates a hospital business in San Dimas, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua I. White, Esq. William M. Hogg, Esq. LAUREL EMPLOYMENT LAW 808 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (323) 551-9221 Facsimile: (310) 564-4093 E-mail: josh@laurelemploymentlaw.com william@laurelemploymentlaw.com PROSPECT HOTEL SERVICES: Villegas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prospect Hotel Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Robert A. Villegas, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Prospect Hotel Services, LLC, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CGC25630349 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 21, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Prospect Hotel Advisors, LLC provides management and marketing consulting services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com ROYAL NEBULA MEDIA: Sherba Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Royal Nebula Media LLC. The case is styled as Donna Sherba, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Royal Nebula Media LLC doing business as: Section8search, Case No. 3:25-cv-02800-LL-DDL (S.D. Cal., Oct. 21, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Royal Nebula Media LLC doing business as Section 8 Search -- https://section8search.org/ -- is here to help you find Section 8 housing anywhere in the United States.[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 SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Fox Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS A. FOX, et al., for themselves and all those similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF SAGINAW, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-11887-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, appointment of class representative, and appointment of class counsel. In this Motion, Mr. Alexander asks this Court to certify the following class (edits from the Original Class as indicated) under Fed. R. Civ. P 23(b)(3): "All persons and entities that owned real property in Washtenaw County, whose real property, during the relevant time period prior to Jan. 1, 2021, was seized through a real property tax foreclosure, which was sold at tax auction for more than the total tax delinquency and were not refunded the auction proceeds in excess of the tax delinquency owed." Mr. Alexander also asks the Court to appoint him as Class Representative and appoint Interim Class Counsel E. Powell Miller and Philip L. Ellison as Class Counsel. On Oct. 3, 2025, the Plaintiff's counsel sought concurrence from Washtenaw County’s counsel in the relief requested in this motion. Washtenaw’s counsel denied concurrence on October 6, 2025. This Court has previously certified the following class in this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3): "All persons and entities that owned real property in the following counties, whose real property, during the relevant time period, was seized through a real property tax foreclosure, which was worth and/or which was sold at tax auction for more than the total tax delinquency and were not refunded the value of the property in excess of the delinquent taxes owed: Alcona, Alpena, Arenac, Bay, Clare, Crawford, Genesee, Gladwin, Gratiot, Huron, Isabella, Jackson, Lapeer, Lenawee, Macomb, Midland, Montmorency, Ogemaw, Oscoda, Otsego, Presque Isle, Roscommon, Saginaw, Sanilac, St Clair, Tuscola, and Washtenaw." Saginaw contains three cities, 27 townships and six incorporated villages. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o4DWJn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. Christopher D. Kaye, Esq. Gregory A. Mitchell, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W University Drive, Ste 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com cdk@millerlawpc.com gam@millerlawpc.com - and - Philip L. Ellison, Esq. OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL, PLC Hemlock, MI 48626 Telephone: (989) 642-0055 E-mail: pellison@olcplc.com - and - Matthew E. Gronda, Esq. St. Charles, MI 48655 Telephone: (989) 249-0350 E-mail: matt@matthewgronda.com - and - Donald R. Visser, Esq. Donovan J. Visser, Esq. Daniel O. Myers, Esq. VISSER AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC 2480 44th Street, SE, Suite 150 Kentwood, MI 49512 Telephone: (616) 531-9860 E-mail: don@visserlegal.com donovan@visserlegal.com dan@visserlegal.com SALESLOFT INC: Courtney Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRANNON COURTNEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff v. SALESLOFT, INC., and APPFOLIO INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05974-ELR (N.D. Ga., October 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The Plaintiff and Class Members include both consumers and employees whose personal and sensitive information was collected and maintained by AppFolio in the course of its business operations. According to the complaint, the Defendants identified they were subject to a cyberattack on or about August 22, 2025. Because of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of pocket expenses, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack and the substantial and imminent risk of identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe, and they should be entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief. Salesoft, Inc. is a technology company that proves a cloud-based sales engagement platform. AppFolio Inc. is a cloud-based software company that provides services to its real estate industry clients through a subscription model.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC. 4279 Roswell Road Suite 208-108 Atlanta, GA 30342 Telephone: (678) 642-2503 E-mail: Marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Street, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com SKYWEST AIRLINES: Petelo Suit Transferred to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Israel Petelo, individually on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. Skywest Airlines, Inc., Does 1-50 inclusive, Case No. 8:25-cv-02265-DOC-DFM was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Oct. 21, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02802-GPC-DEB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated Other Labor. SkyWest Airlines -- https://www.skywest.com/ -- is a leading regional airline serving millions of North America travelers monthly.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Friedman, Esq. KIRKLAND AND ELLIS 601 Lexington Ave. New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 446-4800 Email: todd.friedman@kirkland.com - and - Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN 23586 Calabasas Road, Suite 105 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Email: abacon@toddflaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Esq. JONES DAY 555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 489-3939 Fax: (213) 243-2539 Email: asommerfeld@jonesday.com - and - Patricia T. Stambelos, Esq. STAMBELOS LAW OFFICE 543 Country Club Drive, Suite B209 Simi Valley, CA 93065 Phone: (805) 578-3474 Email: patricia@patriciastambelos.com SOLARAY LLC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Powers Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT POWERS and JOSEPH FINNERTY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SOLARAY LLC, d/b/a STRATEGIC RETAIL PARTNERS, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03304 (D. Colo., October 20, 2025) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data of an undisclosed number of people, including Plaintiffs and other employees. The first data breach occurred between February 3, 2025 and February 6, 2025. The second data breach occurred at some point in March 2025. On or about October 8, approximately 8 months after the first data Breach, the Defendant finally began notifying Class Members about the first data breach, but Defendant never notified impacted individuals of the second data breach. According to the complaint, cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems over a period of four days because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and securing the personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff, and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII/PH -- rendering it an easy target for cybercriminals. In failing to adequately protect its current and former employees’ information, adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature of the breach, the Defendant violated state law and harmed an unknown number of its current and former employees and customers, says the suit. Solaray LLC, d/b/a Strategic Retail Partners, is a retail merchandising company based in Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL: Abraham Suit Removed to D. Maryland -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Ilana Abraham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. St. Mary's Hospital of St. Mary's County, Inc., Case No. C-18-CV-25-000599 was removed from the Circuit Court of Maryland for St. Mary's County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Oct. 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-03479-DKC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. St. Mary's Hospital -- https://www.st-marys.org/ -- is a full-service community hospital that upholds its tradition of caring by continuously promoting, maintaining, and improving health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric J. Menhart, Esq. LEXERO LAW 80 M. St. SE, Ste. 100 Washington, DC 20003 Phone: (855) 453-9376 Fax: (855) 453-9376 Email: Eric.Menhart@Lexero.com The Defendant is represented by: Elizabeth Anne Scully, Esq. BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP 1050 Connecticut Ave NW Ste 1100 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 861-1698 Fax: (202) 861-1783 Email: escully@bakerlaw.com STAT COURIER: Court Grants Preliminary OK of "Jamision" Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Steven Jemison, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Stat Courier, Inc., d/b/a, ATM American Transportation Management & Design, Aaron Tomczak, Bruce Tomczak, Aron Pupi, individually, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01322-WSH, Judge W. Scott Hardy of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted preliminary approval of a class action settlement addressing alleged violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Court considered the requirements of 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and the Settlement documents filed in support of Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The terms of the Settlement are set out in the Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release that has been executed by the Parties. The Court preliminarily found that the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any other applicable law have been met as to the proposed Settlement Class and Sub-Class. The Settlement Class numbers eighty individuals and, therefore, is so numerous that joinder would be impracticable. The Settlement Class includes individuals that are Hourly Employees who worked in Pennsylvania during the Class Period. Based on the allegations in the Complaint, there are one or more questions of fact and law common to the Settlement Class and Sub-Class Members. The Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to properly pay Hourly Employees their overtime compensation due and owing under federal and state laws. The Court found that the Named Plaintiff and Class Counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class in that the interests of the Plaintiff and the nature of his claims are consistent with those of all members of the Settlement Class and Sub-Class, there appear to be no conflicts between or among the Named Plaintiff and the Settlement Class and Sub-Class Members, and the Named Plaintiff and the Settlement Class and Sub-Class Members are represented by qualified counsel who are experienced in preparing and prosecuting class actions of this sort. The Court certified, for settlement purposes only, the Class Member Group - Fund A as all current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of Stat Courier, Inc., d/b/a American Transportation Management & Design and other related defendants that regularly operated both exempt and non-exempt vehicles while employed with the company in Pennsylvania, on or after September 15, 2019. The Court also certified, for settlement purposes only, the Sub-Class Member Group - Fund B as all current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of Stat Courier Inc., d/b/a American Transportation Management & Design and other related defendants that regularly operated non-exempt vehicles while employed with the company in Pennsylvania, on or after September 15, 2019. The Court appointed Steven Jemison as class representative for the Settlement Class. As required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), the Court considered the work Class Counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the case, Class Counsel's experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, as well as wage and hour claims of the type asserted in this case, Class Counsel's knowledge of applicable wage laws, including the FLSA, PMWA and PWPCL, and how those laws apply to the claims in this case, and the resources Class Counsel has committed to representing Plaintiff in this case. The Court designated J.P. Ward & Associates, LLC as Class Counsel with respect to the Settlement Class. The proposed settlement between the parties documented in the Agreement appears to be fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class and Sub-Class Members. The proposed Settlement is hereby preliminarily approved pending a final hearing on the Settlement. The Parties have agreed upon Analytics LLC to serve as this Settlement's Claims Administrator, and the Court approved the appointment of Analytics as the Claims Administrator. A Final Approval Hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) is hereby scheduled for May 11, 2026 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 3B in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Joseph F. Weis, Jr. U.S. Courthouse, 700 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. The Court approved Class Notice substantially in the same form and with the same content as that attached to the Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion. Class and Sub-Class Members may exclude themselves from the Settlement by either sending the Claims Administrator an Opt-Out Form or a letter stating I request to be excluded from the settlement in Jemison v. Stat Courier, Inc. Members of the Settlement Class and Sub-Class may choose to object to the fairness, reasonableness or adequacy of the Settlement by submitting written objections to the Claims Administrator. The Court ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion in Support of Final Approval of Settlement and related relief shall be filed with the Court and served on all counsel of record in accordance with the Court’s policies and practices, no later than April 10, 2026. Further, any application by Class Counsel for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses and for a Service Payment for the Named Plaintiff, and all papers in support thereof, shall be filed with the Court concurrently with Plaintiff’s Motion in Support of Final Approval of Settlement. Any response shall be due April 24, 2026. A copy of the Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cdSdah from PacerMonitor.com SUPPLYING DEMAND: Lewis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Supplying Demand, Inc. The case is styled as Leona Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Supplying Demand, Inc., Case No. 25CV150169 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Oct. 21, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not Fraud/ Breach of Contract)." Supplying Demand -- https://supplyingdemand.com/ -- provides quality appliance repair parts at an affordable price.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bahar Sodaify, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Phone: 213-788-4050 Fax: 213-788-4070 Email: bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com SWEEPSTEAKS LIMITED: Faces Class Suit Over Deceptive Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- Conor Murray of Forbes reports that rapper Drake, livestreamer Adin Ross and Sweepsteaks Limited, the company that owns the online "social casino" Stake.us, were sued in a class action lawsuit in Missouri that accuses the online platform of circumventing state gambling laws and accuses Drake and Ross of "deeply fraudulent" marketing for the company. In the lawsuit, plaintiff Justin Killham says he lost money on Stake.us "as a result of Defendants' wrongful trade practices," accusing Stake of disguising itself as a "social casino" that does not offer real gambling, as a ploy to evade state laws that prohibit online gambling. Stake, co-founded by billionaires Ed Craven and Bijan Tehrani in 2017, operates an online gambling website, Stake.com, as well as a separate website for U.S.-based users, Stake.us, that it calls a "social casino" on which users play games using digital coins. Killham's lawsuit accuses Stake of bypassing gambling laws on Stake.us by bundling user purchases of "gold coins," which have no real-world value, with a bonus of "Stake Cash," which can be gambled and then cashed in for cryptocurrency, which the suit says is a "clear vehicle for real-money gambling." The suit accuses Drake and Ross, both of whom have partnerships with Stake, of targeting teenagers with their marketing for the platform and gambling using "house money" Stake provides them, so any losses they might share on social media are "part of a marketing tactic designed to draw attention." Drake, who has 142 million followers on Instagram, has already made two posts this week advertising Stake, including one video purporting to show him with a balance of $1 million in his Stake account. Forbes has reached out to Stake, representatives for Drake and Ross for comment. [GN] SWIFT HOME: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Spam Calls and Texts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Katie Jensen of Nation Mortgage Professional reports that Swift Home Loans Inc., a Michigan-based mortgage lender, is facing a federal class action lawsuit alleging it bombarded consumers with unwanted text messages. In an amended complaint filed Oct. 20, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, plaintiff Melanee Packard claims that Swift Home Loans violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending telemarketing texts to phone numbers listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. Packard claims that Swift Home Loans promotes its services by sending mass marketing texts to consumers without prior consent, including individuals who had no existing business relationship with the company. She alleges that the company obtained contact information through the purchase of trigger leads, consumer data generated and sold by the credit bureaus when a mortgage credit inquiry is made, and then used those leads to target consumers with marketing messages. Although TCPA lawsuits are nothing new to the mortgage industry, not as many complaints specifically target a lenders' use -- or alleged abuse -- of trigger leads. Last month, President Trump signed off on the Homebuyers Privacy Protection Act (H.R. 2808), which is expected to curb the use of trigger leads across the industry, but that law goes into effect next year, March 5, 2026. Rather, Packard's complaint addresses existing TCPA regulations, 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.1200(c), which provides that "[n]o person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation" to "[a] residential telephone subscriber who has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry . . . that is maintained by the federal government," the complaint reads. Packard allegedly received two unsolicited text messages in July 2025 from a number associated with Swift Home Loans, offering lower VA mortgage rates and referencing a June 2024 mortgage closing that she said never occurred. She also claims that she's never done business with the company, never provided her phone number, and that her number had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry since 2008. The complaint reference quotes another consumer who called Swift Home Loans, "the country's worst offenders when it comes to credit triggers," in an online Reddit post. The consumer further claimed "They are almost exclusively ex Rocket Mortgage employees, generally the ones that were liars and manipulators on the phones. They are high-skilled and highly motivated killers. They call on triggers and pretend to be the original source of the credit pull, like literally saying they are the company that the person was working with calling from a different number." According to NMLS Consumer Access, Swift currently has 147 MLOs on staff as of October 2025, and Modex shows the company closed a total $3.52 billion among 9,836 loans in the past 12 month -- most (85%) were refinances. The company, a broker and correspondent lender, mainly banks its loans (91%), and only brokers roughly 8% of loans with a few wholesalers like AmWest Funding, HomeBridge Financial, and United Wholesale Mortgage (UWM). According to the complaint, those marketing efforts were part of a "high-pressure business model" aimed at intercepting consumers during, or shortly after, a mortgage transaction with another lender. The complaint alleged that Swift Home Loans often misrepresented itself as being affiliated with a consumer's existing lender, and that such practices caused "confusion, annoyance, and harassment" among recipients. The proposed class covers U.S. persons who, "from four years prior to the filing through class certification," received more than one call and/or text from Swift within any 12-month period while their residential number had been on the National DNC for at least 30 days, for substantially the same reason Swift texted Packard, and despite not having provided their number to Swift. [GN] TOPGOLF USA: Cohan Sues Over Discriminative Property ---------------------------------------------------- Howard Cohan, and others similarly situated v. TOPGOLF USA LM, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, d/b/a TOP GOLF, Case No. 6:25-cv-02020 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 21, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, expenses and costs (including, but not limited to, court costs and expert fees) pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of discriminative property. The Defendant has discriminated, and continues to discriminate against Plaintiff and others who are similarly situated by denying access to and full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations located at the Premises, as prohibited by the ADA, and by failing to remove architectural barriers pursuant to the ADA. The Plaintiff is continuously aware of the violations at Defendant's Premises and is aware that it would be a futile gesture to return to the Premises as long as those violations exist, and Plaintiff is not willing to suffer additional discrimination. The Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, direct and indirect injury as a result of Defendant's discrimination until Defendant is compelled to comply with the requirements of the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has visited the Premises and has been denied full and safe equal access to the facilities, and therefore suffered an injury in fact. The Defendant is authorized to conduct, and is in fact conducting, business within the state of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory S. Sconzo, Esq. ADA LEGAL TEAM, LLC 300 Avenue of the Champions, Suite 260 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418 Phone: (561) 227-9821 Facsimile: (561) 491-9459 Email: service@sconzolawoffice.com Secondary Email: greg@adalegalteam.com TREEHOUSE FOODS: $4MM Settlement Final Court OK Hearing Set Dec 12 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that TreeHouse Foods has agreed to pay a $4 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit that claimed the manufacturer failed to warn consumers that many of its frozen breakfast food products voluntarily recalled in October 2024 may have been contaminated with Listeria. The TreeHouse Foods class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on September 2, 2025 and covers any United States resident who, between October 18, 2024 and September 2, 2025, purchased any frozen breakfast product manufactured by Treehouse Foods for personal, family, or household use. The court-approved website for the TreeHouse Foods class action settlement can be found at https://www.WaffleRecallSettlement.com/. TreeHouse Foods settlement class members who submit a timely, valid claim form have multiple options to receive monetary reimbursement. According to the class action settlement website, each eligible class member’s payout may be increased or decreased on a pro-rated basis, such that the total amount paid to all class members equals the available settlement funds or a maximum of $50 per person, whichever is lower. Those who submit documented proof of purchase with their claim form are entitled to a one-time cash payment equivalent to the full price they paid for each unit purchased, inclusive of all taxes. Class members who submit a valid claim form with no proof of purchase may receive a one-time cash payment based on the average retail price for up to two units, the settlement site specifies. For any class member who previously received reimbursement from TreeHouse Foods at the time of the recall, the amount they already received will be subtracted from the amount they are entitled to, court documents state. To submit a settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and complete each field regarding contact information, products purchased, proof of claims, and payment information. Alternatively, class members may download a PDF copy of the claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the address listed under section 4 of the form. TreeHouse Foods settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by December 16, 2025. Should a class member elect to exclude themselves from the settlement, opt-out forms are also due on the same date. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the TreeHouse Foods settlement at a hearing on December 12, 2025. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class member who submitted a valid claim only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The TreeHouse Foods class action lawsuit alleged that the manufacturer did not warn consumers that its frozen waffles and pancakes were potentially contaminated with Listeria, a harmful bacterium that can cause infection and several health complications. Per court documents, over four dozen brands fell under the October 2024 TreeHouse Foods recall. [GN] ULTA SALON: Faces Class Lawsuit Over "Conscious Beauty" Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Plaintiff Margaret Garvey filed a class action lawsuit against Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc. Why: Garvey claims Ulta misrepresents that its "Conscious Beauty" products are made with "clean ingredients". Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new nationwide class action lawsuit alleges Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance misrepresents that its "Conscious Beauty" products are made with "clean ingredients" that exclude ingredients on its "Made Without List". Plaintiff Margaret Garvey claims Ulta's "Conscious Beauty" products contain numerous ingredients that are excluded by the company's "Made Without List." When Ulta launched its "Conscious Beauty" program in October 2020, it described it as a "first-of-its-kind" initiative focused on delivering transparency to inspire more informed, conscious product choices for guests, their loved ones and the environment. "The program aims to provide transparency and empower consumers to make more informed choices about their Ulta beauty products by focusing on five key pillars: clean ingredients, cruelty-free practices, vegan options, sustainable packaging, and positive impact," the Ulta class action says. That's not something the brand has actually lived up to, Garvey alleges. Class action: Ulta misled consumers into purchasing ‘Conscious Beauty' products Garvey says in her class action lawsuit that Ulta's "Made Without List" is a set of standards that prohibits the use of certain ingredients commonly associated with adverse health and environmental impacts. Ulta allegedly requires brands participating in the program to formulate their products according to these standards, which include excluding acrylates, phthalates, aluminum compounds and other substances. Despite these claims, Garvey argues that many of the products sold under the "Conscious Beauty" label contain prohibited ingredients. Ulta's marketing materials and website allegedly emphasize that the products are made with clean ingredients, leading consumers to believe they are free from harmful substances. Garvey says she purchased Ulta products believing they were clean and environmentally friendly, only to discover they contained ingredients on the "Made Without List." She claims she would not have purchased the products or would have paid less if she had known the truth. The Ulta class action lawsuit alleges violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law and Environmental Marketing Claims Act. It also alleges fraud, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. Garvey seeks to represent a class of all residents of the United States who, within the applicable statute of limitations periods, purchased the products for personal, family or household purposes. Recently, beauty product manufacturer Revlon was hit with a class action alleging the company falsely advertises Almay products as being "hypoallergenic," when in fact they contain a "shocking array" of known skin sensitizers, irritants and allergens. The plaintiff is represented by James A. Morris and Shane A. Greenberg of Morris Law Firm and Daniel J. Orlowsky of Orlowsky Law LLC. The Ulta class action lawsuit is Garvey, et al. v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-05965, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] UNITED HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Filing Extended to March 31, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Lee entered an order extending class certification and subsequent deadlines as follows 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: Class certification hearing and case June 24, 2026 management conference: Close of fact discovery: Nov. 2, 2026 Close of expert discovery: Dec. 1, 2026 Deadline to file dispositive and Daubert Jan. 15, 2027 Motions: . Last day to hear dispositive and Daubert April 14, 2027 motions: United provides hospital, medical, and other health services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Kz1oEw 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 STATES: Singla Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Dipesh Singla, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals v. United States of America, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01426 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Oct. 21, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-12810 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated Other Civil Rights. The U.S. -- https://www.usa.gov/ -- is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: AUSA - Chicago, United States Attorney's Office (NDIL Chicago) 219 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604 Email: USAILN.ECFAUSA@usdoj.gov VESSEL GOLF: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- Victor Lopez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. VESSEL GOLF LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-08688 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 21, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://vesselgolf.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. VESSEL GOLF LLC, operates the Vessel Golf online retail store, as well as the Vessel Golf interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Danalgottlieb@aol.com Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal VICTOR ZACARAEV: Juliand Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Victor Zacaraev. The case is styled as Amanda Juliand, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Victor Zacaraev d/b/a Certified Green Team, Case No. 2577CV01152 (Mass. Super. Ct., Essex Cty., Oct. 21, 2025). The case type is stated as "Contract / Business Cases." Victor Zacaraev doing business as Certified Green Team -- https://certifiedgreenteam.com/ -- is a Carpet Cleaner serving the Brighton, Massachusetts area since 2016.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael C. Forrest, Esq. Kevin John McCullough, Esq. MAZOW/MCCULLOUGH 10 DERBY SQUARE Salem, MA 01970 Phone: (978) 744-8000 WILKES UNIVERSITY: Pawelzik Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- MACKENZIE PAWELZIK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILKES UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01976-JKM (M.D. Pa., October 20, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed in October 2025. The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. According to the complaint, the Defendant 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 Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the private information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. 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. Wilkes University is a private university based in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: erunfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com WILLIS-KNIGHTON: Agrees to Settle Privacy Class Suit for $2.1MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Willis-Knighton Medical Center has agreed to pay a $2,100,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit over the alleged disclosure of patients' personal information to Meta and Google without consent. The Willis-Knighton class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on July 22, 2025 and covers anyone who was an InteliChart and/or Meditech patient portal account holder through Willis-Knighton or made a request to schedule an appointment online with the medical center from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2023. The court-approved website for the Willis-Knighton Medical Center class action settlement can be found at https://WKMCDataSettlement.com/. Willis-Knighton settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form have several options for reimbursement, depending on their activity on the medical provider's site. According to settlement documents, patient account holders who requested an online appointment with Willis-Knighton are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of $25. Any patient who accessed their Willis-Knighton InteliChart patient portal is eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of $38, and any patient who accessed their Willis-Knighton Meditech patient portal is eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of $15. In addition to monetary reimbursement, all settlement class members with a valid claim may enroll in one year of credit monitoring and fraud protection through CyEx, court documents state. Per the settlement agreement, settlement class members can elect to receive their monetary reimbursement via check or electronic payment, and they will have 120 days to cash their checks after the date of issuance before they expire. As part of the class action settlement, Willis-Knighton Medical Center has also agreed to refrain from using on its web properties certain digital analytics technologies, including trackers from Google, TikTok, Pinterest, TheTradeDesk, Meta, Amazon, LinkedIn and others, for a period of two years. To submit a Willis-Knighton settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. Those who believe they may be a class member but did not receive a notice online or in the mail should contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and receive a login ID. Alternatively, a class member can download a PDF copy of the claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the address listed near the top of the form: -Claim form for requested appointments online -Claim form for InteliChart patient portal -Claim form for Meditech patient portal Willis-Knighton Medical Center settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by December 18, 2025. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Willis-Knighton settlement at a hearing on January 22, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to eligible class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Willig-Knighton Medical Center class action lawsuit alleged that the healthcare provider shared the personal information of approximately 115,000 patients with Google and Meta through its website and patient portals. Per the suit, the patient data that was transmitted included, but was not limited to, names, Social Security Numbers, identification numbers, dates of birth, financial account information, credit card numbers, digital signatures, health insurance information, health histories, and contact information. [GN] WINIX GLOBAL LLC: Yant Files Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Winix Global LLC, et al. The case is styled as Lukas Yant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Winix Global LLC, Winix America, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-12851 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 21, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. WINIX -- https://www.winixamerica.com/ -- has manufactured innovative air treatment solutions for the home and office environments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Email: aleslie@bursor.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***