251105.mbx

251105.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, November 5, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 221 Headlines 2490 PROPERTIES: Faces Castaneda Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. 3M CO: Continues to Defend Firefighting Injuries Suit in Missouri 3M CO: Continues to Defend PFAS National Consumer Suit in B.C 3M CO: Personal Injury Class Suit Trial Set for May 2026 3M CO: Trial for PFAS Property Damage Suit Set for Nov. 1, 2027 3M CO: Wisconsin PFAS Class Suit Trial Set for June 2027 ACTIVEHOURS INC: Court Directs Arbitration in "Stow" Suit AEON: Williams Files Suit in Minn. 4th Judicial Dist. AEROVIAS DEL CONTINENTE: Pedroso Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AJOCA CORPORATION: Segura Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ALBERT CORPORATION: Wurm Files Suit in S.D. Florida ALBERTSON'S LLC: Martinez Appeals TAC Dismissal to 9th Circuit AMERISERVE COMMERCIAL: Jimenez Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages ANCHORAGE NEIGHBORHOOD: Hoy Suit Removed to D. Alaska ANDRE STANCIL: Solazzo Files Suit in D. Colorado ANYTIME FITNESS: Murphy Files Suit in Minn. 4th Judicial Dist. ARTISAN BREWERS: Freeman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ASHLEY STEWART: Kelly Suit Removed to W.D. Washington AUTOZONE INC: Agrees to Settle Privacy Class Action Lawsuit AVANTOR INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit B & JCM HOSPITALITY: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property BAKER HUGHES: Continues to Defend Reckstin Family Trust Class Suit BANK OF AMERICA: Appeals Class Certification Order in Aldana Suit BANK OF AMERICA: Martin Sues Over Unpaid Wages BAYER AG: $38-Mil. Class Settlement Gets Court Final Approval BETTY BLUE USA: Lucius Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BEVERLY SHERBOURNE: Abbate Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BH ANDREWS RIDGE: Walker Suit Removed to D. Maryland BIG STAR: Sylvain Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages, Retaliation C-STORE SERVICES: Huntley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CALIBER HOLDINGS: Carrillo Suit Removed to C.D. California CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit CAREMARK PCS: Flowers Appeals Suit Dismissal to 8th Circuit CAROLINA HERRERA: Fernandez Sues Over Disability Discrimination CASSAVA SCIENCES: Appeals Class Certification Order in Bozorgi Suit CDA INC: Buckner Suit Removed to N.D. California CENTRAL JERSEY MEDICAL: Batista Files Suit in N.J. Super. Ct. CENTRAL JERSEY MEDICAL: Deschamps Files Suit in N.J. Super. Ct. CENTRAL JERSEY MEDICAL: Marshall Files Suit in N.J. Super. Ct. CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Radiology Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota CHELSEA ROYAL CARE: Norris Sues Over Discriminative Property CIRCLE INTERNET: Newton AC/DC Suit Removed to S.D. New York CLASSPASS USA LLC: Struck Suit Removed to C.D. California CLICK SALES INC: Mejico Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CLINTONVILLE CLEANER: Norris Sues Over Discriminative Property CME GROUP: Continues to Defend Certificates of Incorporation Suit COMFRT LLC: Saini Sues Over Fake Advertised "Sale" Prices COMPLETE CLOTHING: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CORE SCIENTIFIC: Continues to Defend Ihle Class Suit in Delaware CULTURE KINGS: Wright Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DAVIS WIRE: Mazariegos Suit Removed to C.D. California DELPHON INDUSTRIES: Begum Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DERMARITE INDUSTRIES: Wright Files Suit in E.D. New York DFA DAIRY BRANDS: Cornwell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DIAGEO NORTH: Moves to Dismiss Tequila Class Action DNH BERGEN: Torres Sues Over Discriminative Property DOW INC: Faces Securities Class Suit in Michigan EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Frederick Files Suit in D. Connecticut EFINANCIAL LLC: Parrish Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ELEV8 COMMERCIAL: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ELEVENTY USA: Espinoza Sues Over Discriminative Website ELI LILLY: Files Writ of Certiorari Petition to U.S. Supreme Court EVERYDAY HEALTH: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Ramirez Says FCS SNEAKERS INC: Solis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FIRST SOLAR INCORPORATED: Gallardo Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio FONDA OF CHELSEA: Norris Sues Over Discriminative Property FORBIDDEN PLANET: Solis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FUTUREPLAN ADMINISTRATIVE: Chant Sues Over Illegal Restatement Fees FYF-EVE'S LLC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GAINFUL HEALTH INC: Coronado Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York GEMINI EXPRESS: Blandon Suit Transferred to E.D. New York GENERAL DYNAMICS: Continues to Defend Sherman Act Class Suit in Va. GENERAL PRODUCE: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GOLDEN WEST TRADING: Ochoa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GULPERI LLC: Cheli Sues Over Inaccessible Property HARBOUR RESTAURANT: Espinoza Sues Over Discriminative Website HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HARTIN ASSET: Hileman Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. New York HERMES INTERNATIONAL: Cavalleri Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. HEYWOOD MEDICAL GROUP: Lindsay Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. HILLSHIRE BRANDS: Faces Suit Over Contaminated Corn Dog Products HUMAN BEES INC: Meza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. INTERNATIONAL GAME: Schoenbrun Sues Over Data Breach INTEX RECREATION: Faces Potase Suit Over Unsafe Swimming Pools IQ DATA: Nelson Labor Class Suit Seeks Class Certification IRIS USA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Container Design JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Barnes Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Cook Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Oatman Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Pearson Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Junks Lie Detector Claim in "Cyr" JUICY'S VAPOR: Court Denies Class Certification in "Schmitendorf" JUICY'S VAPOR: Schmitendorf Bid for Class Certification Tossed KINDER MORGAN: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit in Texas KLER'S LISBON: Nowacki Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation LIFELONG MEDICAL CARE: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LLUME JEWELRY: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LOCKHEED MARTIN: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in N.Y. LOW TECH TOY CLUB: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MANHATTAN ASSOCIATES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit MAXIMUS INC: Doctors, Nurses Sue Over Montana Recovery Program MAYAGUEZ, PR: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge MCBS LLC: Rivera Files Suit in S.D. Georgia METHODIST HOMES DEVELOPMENT: Bassett Files Suit in M.D. Florida MIDTOWN SPIRITS: Norris Sues Over Discriminative Property MINDSTATE MANAGEMENT: Rashley Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida MINNEAPOLIS, MN: Salzer Files Suit in Minn. 4th Judicial Dist. MONSANTO COMPANY: Morgan Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Skrzypczak Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Spicer Suit Transferred to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Zurn Suit Transferred to N.D. California MORTGAGE BANK: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Class Cert Bid Filing Changed to Feb. 9, 2026 MYRTLE BEACH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Daniel Due June 5, 2026 NAKED WHEY: Caballero Sues Over Reckless Misrepresenting Products NEW YORK GRILLED: Ariza Sues Over Disability Discrimination NEWBURY ROOFTOP: Ospina Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NEWPORT GROUP: Bid for More Time to File Opposition OK'd in Russ NEWPORT GROUP: Bid for More Time to File Opposition OK'd in Wade NJ LENDERS CORP: Castenie Files Suit in D. New Jersey OCEAN FOOD AND FUELS: Cheli Sues Over Inaccessible Property OLAPLEX INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Wrights Says OPTIMAL BLUE: Klee Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages OTTAWA COUNTY, MI: Grainger Appeals Reconsideration Bid Ruling PACIFIC GUARDIAN: Settles Data Breach Class Action Suit for $2MM PALMETTO OFFICE PARK: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property PARKMOBILE LLC: Hayward Suit Dismissed with Prejudice PAVILION ASSISTED: Parties Seeks to Approve Class Notice PENNEY OPCO: Bedoy Suit Removed to C.D. California PEOPLEGURU HOLDINGS: Atkinson Files Suit in M.D. Florida PEOPLEGURU HOLDINGS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Sandal Says PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY: Appeals Reconsideration Order to 9th Cir. PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Adams Class Suit in Canada PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Bourassa Class Suit in Canada PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Jacklin Class Suit in Ontario POMONA VALLEY: Agrees to Settle Data Sharing Suit for $600,000 PRESTIGE INTERNATIONAL: Sulaiman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Alexander Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir. PROSPER FUNDING: Fails to Properly Secure Personal Info, Shaw Says PROSPER FUNDING: Rivera Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII QUAKER OATS: Zhen Appeals Class Cert. and Attorney Fees Ruling RALPHS GROCERY: Partida Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RECKER CONSULTING: Lott Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 6th Cir. RECKER CONSULTING: Lott Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 6th Cir. SINCLAIR INC: Sanchez Suit Removed to C.D. California SIRIUS XM: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss a Class Action Lawsuit SUNSET CENTER: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property THORNTONS LLC: Appeals Remand Order in Phillips Suit to 9th Cir. TRUE YOGA: Consumers Group Files Class Action Lawsuit U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL: Face Class Action Suit Over "Drip Pricing" WESTERN UNION: Continues to Defend Money Transfer Fees Class Suit WINDGATE RANCH: "Engle" Remains in Nebraska District Court ********* 2490 PROPERTIES: Faces Castaneda Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- ANTONIO CASTANEDA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 2490 PROPERTIES LLC (d/b/a 2490 PROPERTIES), 20 WEST PROPERTIES LLC (d/b/a 20 West PROPERTIES), DERVIS BERICHA, and YONI BERICHA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08789 (S.D.N.Y., October 23, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Castaneda worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without receiving the applicable minimum wage or appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per week that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of his hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiff Castaneda the applicable minimum wage, and failed to pay him appropriately for any hours worked over 40, either at the minimum wage of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Castaneda the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours per day, says the suit. Plaintiff Castaneda was employed by the Defendants from approximately 2015 until February 29, 2024 as a superintendent at Defendants" residential buildings. 2490 Properties LLC owns, operates, and controls two residential buildings in Bronx, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd St., Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 3M CO: Continues to Defend Firefighting Injuries Suit in Missouri ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the firefighting-related injuries class suit in Missouri. In September 2025, 3M was named a defendant in a personal injury suit filed in Missouri state court alleging plaintiff’s injuries were caused by exposure to chemicals in firefighting protective gear. 3M removed the case to federal court in September 2025 and is seeking to have the case transferred to the AFFF MDL. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] 3M CO: Continues to Defend PFAS National Consumer Suit in B.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 the Company continues to defend itself from the PFAS national consumer class suit in the British Columbia Supreme Court. In September 2024, a putative nationwide consumer class action was filed against 3M Canada, 3M Company, and other defendants in the British Columbia Supreme Court on behalf of all persons who purchased carpeting treated with PFAS-containing products before January 1, 2020. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, and the replacement of PFAS treated carpeting with non-PFAS treated carpeting. 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: Personal Injury Class Suit Trial Set for May 2026 -------------------------------------------------------- 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 New Jersey federal court scheduled the personal injury class suit trial in May 2026. In March 2023, a personal injury lawsuit was filed against 3M and Middlesex Water Company by another Middlesex Water Company customer. The case is now proceeding in discovery. Trial is currently set for May 2026. 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: Trial for PFAS Property Damage Suit Set for Nov. 1, 2027 --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 federal court of Wisconsin has set trial date for PFAS property damage class suit on November 1, 2027. In December 2024, 3M was named as a defendant in a putative class action brought in federal court by several private well owners near 3M's Wausau Greystone quarry seeking to recover for property damages and medical monitoring related to alleged PFAS contamination. The case also includes (non-class) personal injury claims on behalf of select plaintiffs. 3M filed a motion to dismiss this case in February 2025, which remains pending. Trial is scheduled for November 1, 2027. 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: Wisconsin PFAS Class Suit Trial Set for June 2027 -------------------------------------------------------- 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 federal court of Wisconsin has set trial date for the PFAS class suit in June 2027. In Wisconsin, in August 2023, 3M and other defendants were named as defendants in a putative class action brought in federal court by several residents of Oneida County alleging property damage resulting from PFAS contamination they attribute to waste generated from the operations of a paper mill in Rhinelander, Wisconsin that was then incorporated into biosolids. 3M’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part in June 2025. The case is proceeding through discovery. The court has set a trial date in June 2027. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] ACTIVEHOURS INC: Court Directs Arbitration in "Stow" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Joshua Stow, Sharone Bunn, and Tiara Lofton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Activehours, Inc., doing business as EarnIn, Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:25-CV-391 (M.D.N.C.), Chief District Judge Catherine C. Eagles of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration, finding that all three Plaintiffs entered into valid online agreements with arbitration provisions. According to the complaint, EarnIn offers cash advances through its internet lending application. The application advertises that it allows consumers to access their paychecks early. The application provides up to $100 in cash advances at a time and up to $750 per pay period. EarnIn advertises itself as providing an instant source of money directly from a cell phone and as a way for consumers to access their earned wages before payday. It charges consumers fees to obtain that immediate access. It also requests a tip charge during the transaction. The Plaintiffs each used the application, created accounts, filled out EarnIn's cash advance application, and paid the mandatory lightning speed fees to obtain immediate access to those cash advances. They allege that EarnIn's charges and fees violate North Carolina state law governing cash advance practices. For example, they allege that EarnIn's lightning speed fee is unrelated to costs associated with providing loans quickly and instead is a form of compensation for lending money, that constitutes a predatory loan. They allege that the tips do not go to workers but rather are a revenue source for EarnIn and that EarnIn's use of that word is misleading and deceptive. For these and other actions, they assert causes of action under the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act, the North Carolina Debt Collection Act, and the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. EarnIn moved to compel arbitration on the claims. It contended that the Plaintiffs agreed to arbitrate their claims by accepting EarnIn's Terms of Service. The Plaintiffs acknowledged that the Terms of Service provisions include an arbitration agreement and a class action waiver. However, they contended that the notices of these provisions were effectively buried and did not provide constructive notice, so that no enforceable agreement was formed under the applicable California law. Under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Section 1-14, a litigant can obtain an order to compel arbitration if it proves that: (1) a dispute exists between the parties; (2) the dispute falls within the scope of a written, valid agreement that includes an arbitration provision; (3) the parties' agreement relates to interstate or foreign commerce; and (4) the opposing party has failed or refused to arbitrate the dispute at hand. The Federal Arbitration Act reflects a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements as a means of settling disputes. It requires courts to enforce covered arbitration agreements according to their terms. Once a litigant establishes the existence of an arbitration agreement and one party's failure to comply, the Federal Arbitration Act mandates that the court shall make an order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration. The Federal Arbitration Act requires that the district court rather than an arbitrator decide whether the parties have formed an agreement to arbitrate. Because the issue of whether an arbitration agreement has been formed is an issue of contract law, courts apply the ordinary state-law principles that govern the formation of contracts in reviewing a challenge under Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Here, the parties agreed that California law applies. For sign-in wrap agreements like those at issue here, California law requires that the consumer: (1) was given reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms; and (2) unambiguously manifested their assent to those terms. The sign-up flow that Bunn and Stow used to create their accounts in February and October 2022 included a hyperlink to the Terms and Privacy Policy in a different blue font immediately above the next button and the white screen was uncluttered with dark text throughout. Stow and Bunn did not dispute that the screen meets the notice requirement of online contract formation. The evidence was undisputed that Stow and Bunn each clicked on the Next button, right below the statement that By signing up, you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy, with the Terms and Privacy Policy in blue. They then clicked through the next three screens to get to Screen E, where they clicked on the create account button. EarnIn told users that By signing up, you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy. Clicking the Next buttons and then the Create Account button constituted assent because each page represented a step in the account creation process and screen A stated that By signing up, you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy. Contrary to the Plaintiffs' contentions, the existence of multiple screens alone does not mean that the parties did not manifest assent. The dispositive fact in Chabolla was that the unclear, operative button on the third screen was labeled redeem now, which did not make it clear that the user was accepting terms of use provided on an earlier screen. Here, the words on the first screen said that by signing up a user accepted the terms and conditions, and the words create account a few screens later is a reasonably clear synonym for signing up. Clicking create account four screens later manifested assent. By clicking on the Create Account button, Stow and Bunn unambiguously indicated assent to the Terms of Service. They thus agreed to the arbitration provisions in the Terms of Service when they created their accounts. The sign-up flow Lofton used to create her account in May 2023 provided reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms of the agreement. The text for the Terms of Service was the same color and size as the text surrounding it; however, the text was darker than the white background, underlined, and was immediately below the create account button. There were no intermediate screens. Lofton's sign-up screen stated that By continuing, you're agreeing to receive email marketing from Earnin. You're also agreeing to Earnin's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. This text was displayed immediately below the create account button, and thus, she manifested assent to be bound by the terms when she created the account. In the alternative, Lofton asserted that the arbitration clause in the April 2023 Terms of Service should be invalidated as unconscionable. She contended that the unconscionability arises from the prohibition of Collective Arbitration, which prevents attorneys from representing more than one claimant with similar claims simultaneously. Under California law, procedural and substantive unconscionability must both be present in order for a court to refuse to enforce a contract or clause under the doctrine of unconscionability. Because the April 2023 Terms of Service provided 30 days to opt-out of the arbitration clause without penalty, it is not unconscionable. All three Plaintiffs entered into valid online agreements, the Terms of Service agreements, with EarnIn when they created their accounts. The Terms of Service agreements include arbitration provisions. The Court granted EarnIn's motion to compel arbitration. The case was stayed for one year. Absent a motion to continue the stay filed no later than September 30, 2026, the stay will be lifted and the case dismissed without prejudice on or soon after October 30, 2026, without further notice. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z7IsEd from PacerMonitor.com AEON: Williams Files Suit in Minn. 4th Judicial Dist. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aeon, et al. The case is styled as Sherrie Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Aeon, YES Energy Management, Case No. 27-CV-25-19174 (Minn. 4th Judicial Dist., Hennepin Cty., Oct. 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other-Civil." Aeon -- https://aeon.co/ -- is a magazine of ideas and culture.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Wilcox, Esq. CHRISTENSEN SAMPSEL PLLC 305 North Fifth Avenue, Suite 375 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 473-1200 Email: chris@christensensampsel.com AEROVIAS DEL CONTINENTE: Pedroso Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aerovias Del Continente Americano S.A. Avianca. The case is styled as Lais Pedroso, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Aerovias Del Continente Americano S.A. Avianca, Case No. 25STCV31071 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 24, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Commercial/Business Tort (Not Fraud/ Breach of Contract) (General Jurisdiction)." Aerovias del Continente Americano S.A. -- https://www.avianca.com/en -- is the largest airline in Colombia and a major airline in Latin America, headquartered in Bogota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Michael Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY, LLP 100 Pine Street Suite 1250 San Diego, CA 92111 Phone: (415) 534-1911 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: jimt@potterhandy.com AJOCA CORPORATION: Segura Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Luis Segura, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AJOCA CORPORATION dba WHCI 15 PLUMBING SUPPLY, a Maine corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CV147246 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Oct. 3, 2025), is brought against the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; waiting time penalties; wage statement violations; failure to timely pay wages; failure to indemnify; and Unfair Competition. The Plaintiff and Class Members working over 8 hours per day, 40 hours per week, and seven consecutive work days in a work week without being properly compensated for hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day in a work day, 40 hours per week in a work week, and/or hours worked on the seventh consecutive work day in a work week. The Defendants did not accurately or appropriately compensate Plaintiff and Class Members for the hours worked by, among other things, failing to accurately track and/or pay for all minutes actually worked at the proper overtime rate of pay; engaging, suffering, or permitting employees to work off the clock, including, without limitation, by requiring Plaintiff and Class Members to clock out for meal periods and continue working, and continue to work during rest periods, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee. HAJOCA is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State ofMaine and doing business in the County of Alameda, State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah H. Cohen, Esq. BIBIYAN LAWGROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, VA 90024 Phone: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: sarah@tomorrowlaw.com ALBERT CORPORATION: Wurm Files Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Albert Corporation. The case is styled as Charming Wurm, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Albert Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-00096-TSK (S.D. Fla., Oct. 22, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Albert Corporation -- https://albert.com/ -- is a Brookline-based condominium management firm.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Dora Faye Kaufman, Esq. LIEBLER, GONZALEZ & PORTUONDO 44 West Flagler Street, 25th Floor Miami, FL 33130 Phone: (305) 379-0400 Fax: (305) 379-9626 Email: dfk@lgplaw.com ALBERTSON'S LLC: Martinez Appeals TAC Dismissal to 9th Circuit -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH MARTINEZ is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Joseph Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Albertson's, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-00023-FWS-KES, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit, which was removed from Orange County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of the California Labor Code. On Jan. 7, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC), which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Jan. 28, 2025. On Mar. 25, 2025, Judge Fred W. Slaughter entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff's FAC is dismissed with leave to amend. On Apr. 14, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (SAC), which the Defendants moved to dismiss on May 20, 2025. On July 22, 2025, Judge Slaughter entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff's SAC is dismissed with leave to amend. On Aug. 12, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint (TAC), which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Aug. 26, 2025. On Sept. 24, 2025, Judge Slaughter entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff's TAC is dismissed without leave to amend. The appellate case is entitled Martinez v. Albertson's, LLC, et al., Case No. 25-6654, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 21, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 27, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on November 3, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on December 3, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on January 12, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on February 12, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JOSEPH MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Cassandra Ariana Castro, Esq. David P. Myers, Esq. MYERS LAW GROUP, APC 9327 Fairway View Place, Suite 100 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 - and - Jason Hatcher, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI 14758 Pipeline Avenue Chino Hills, CA 91709 Defendants-Appellees ALBERTSON'S, LLC, et al. are represented by: Brian Noh, Esq. Brittany Maraya Hernandez, Esq. REED SMITH, LLP 515 S. Flower Street, Suite 4300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 AMERISERVE COMMERCIAL: Jimenez Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Jimenez, for himself and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Ameriserve Commercial, LLC d/b/a Georgia Air & Refrigeration, Case No. 8:25-cv-02864 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 21, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay proper wages. The Defendants violated the FLSA with respect to Plaintiff and those similarly situated by failing to properly compensate Plaintiff minimum age for all hour worked and failing to compensate them properly for overtime worked. The issues arose from, without limitation, the Defendant's failure to properly documents and pay for all hours worked and for travel time. The Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiffs at 1.5 times their hourly rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per week as required by the overtime requirements of the FLSA. The Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiffs for all hours worked at a rate at least the minimum wage required by the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff were employed by Defendants within the three years preceding the filing of this complaint and worked as HVAC service technicians. The Defendant operates a commercial air-conditioning service in Georgia, Florida, the Carolinas, Alabama, and Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Kemp Brinson, Esq. REED MAWHINNEY & LINK 53 Lake Morton Drive, Suite 100 Lakeland, FL 32803 Office: 863-687-1771 Mobile: 863-288-0234 Email: Kemp@PolkLawyer.com JKBService@PolkLawyer.com ANCHORAGE NEIGHBORHOOD: Hoy Suit Removed to D. Alaska ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Darryl Hoy, Laura Jean Wachholz, Lew Diggs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Anchorage Neighborhood Health Center, Inc., Case No. 3AN-25-09228CI was removed from the State of Alaska, 3rd Judicial District, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska on Oct. 23, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00298 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Med. Malpractice. Anchorage Neighborhood Health Center -- https://www.anhc.org/ -- is a community health center.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua Bryan Cooley, Esq. Katherine Elsner, Esq. EHRHARDT, ELSNER, AND COOLEY 215 Fidalgo Ave., Suite 201 Kenai, AK 99611 Phone: (907) 283-2876 Fax: (907) 283-2896 Email: Josh@907legal.com katie@907legal.com The Defendant is represented by: Scott J. Gerlach, Esq. JERMAIN, DUNNAGAN & OWENS 111 W. 16th Avenue, Suite 203 Anchorage, AK 99501 Phone: (907) 563-8844 Fax: (907) 563-7322 Email: sgerlach@jdolaw.com ANDRE STANCIL: Solazzo Files Suit in D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Andre Stancil, et al. The case is styled as Andrew Solazzo, and on the behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Andre Stancil, Executive Director of Colorado Dept. of Correction; Shane Stucker, Warden F.C.F.; Amanda Retting; James Bailey; Pamela Richardson; Robin Garrelts; Ms. Jorden Hartly; David Bergman; Adam Garcia; Casey Warner; Julie Russell; Robin Richards; Christine Gennetta; Marshal Griffith; Shannon Folz; Ms. Gaffrey; Case No. 1:25-cv-03371-RTG (D. Colo., Oct. 24, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Andre Stancil is the interim executive director of the Colorado Department of Corrections.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. ANYTIME FITNESS: Murphy Files Suit in Minn. 4th Judicial Dist. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anytime Fitness, LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Anytime Fitness, LLC, Bradley Management, LLC, Case No. 27-CV-25-19173 (Minn. 4th Judicial Dist., Hennepin Cty., Oct. 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other-Civil." Anytime Fitness -- https://www.anytimefitness.com/ -- is an American franchise of 24 hour health and fitness clubs that is based in Woodbury, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Wilcox, Esq. CHRISTENSEN SAMPSEL PLLC 305 North Fifth Avenue, Suite 375 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 473-1200 Email: chris@christensensampsel.com ARTISAN BREWERS: Freeman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Artisan Brewers, LLC. The case is styled as Jeffie Freeman, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Artisan Brewers, LLC, Case No. 25CV150340 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Oct. 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Artisanal Brewers Collective specializes in craft beer and offers thoughtful menus along with dedicated concepts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fawn F. Bekam, Esq. ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP 1700 W Burbank Blvd. Burbank, CA 91506-1313 Phone: 213-493-6300 Fax: 213-336-3704 Email: fawn@abramsonlabor.com ASHLEY STEWART: Kelly Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Teresa Kelly, for herself, as a private attorney general, and/or on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASHLEY STEWART, INC. and KINBOW LLC, Case No. 25-2-27702-0 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Oct. 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02094. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA") and the Consumer Protection Act ("CPA") by sending marketing emails to Washington consumers with false and misleading subject lines. The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Vanessa Soriano Power, Esq. Jenna M. Poligo, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 600 University Street, Ste. 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 624-0900 Facsimile: (206) 386-7500 Email: vanessa.power@stoel.com jenna.poligo@stoel.com AUTOZONE INC: Agrees to Settle Privacy Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that AutoZone has agreed to a settlement to resolve claims it violated Pennsylvania privacy laws by tracking customer activity on its website without their consent. The settlement benefits Pennsylvania residents who placed an order on AutoZone.com between Jan. 1, 2022, and the present while the website was equipped with session replay technology and who were not members of the AutoZone Rewards program. The plaintiff in the web tracking class action lawsuit claims AutoZone used session replay technology on its website to track mouse movements and clicks. This technology allegedly tracked customer activity without their consent, violating Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA). AutoZone is an auto parts retailer with more than 6,000 stores around the country. AutoZone has not admitted any wrongdoing but has agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the privacy class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive a $20 cash payment. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Oct. 14, 2025. The final approval hearing for the AutoZone settlement is scheduled for Nov. 25, 2025. To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid claim form by Nov. 13, 2025. Who's Eligible Pennsylvania residents who placed an order on AutoZone.com while the website was equipped with session replay technology between Jan. 1, 2022, and the present and who were not members of the AutoZone Rewards program. Potential Award $20 cash benefit Proof of Purchase No proof of purchase is required. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 11/13/2025 Case Name Farst v. AutoZone Inc., et al., Case No. 2024-00002, in the Court of Common Pleas of the County of Cumberland, 9th Judicial District, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Final Hearing 11/25/2025 Settlement Website AZ-Settlement.com Claims Administrator AutoZone WESCA Settlement 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (833) 749-4176 Class Counsel Ari Marcus MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC Andrew Shamis SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. Joseph Kanee THE KANEE LAW FIRM PLLC Defense Counsel James Monagle MULLEN COUGHLIN LLP [GN] AVANTOR INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP informs stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Avantor, Inc. (NYSE: AVTR) common stock between March 5, 2024 and October 28, 2025. Avantor provides scientific products and services for customers in biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, healthcare, education, government, and other industries. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Avantor, Inc. (AVTR) Mislead Investors Regarding the Effects of Increased Competition According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Avantor's competitive positioning was weaker than defendants had publicly represented; (2) Avantor was experiencing negative effects from increased competition; and (3) as a result, defendants' representations about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Plaintiff alleges that on October 29, 2025, the Company reported weak third quarter 2025 financial results, including -5% organic revenue growth (below defendants' August guidance), and a net loss of $712 million, which defendants primarily attributed to a non-cash goodwill impairment charge of $785 million. Defendants revealed that the impairment charge was necessary due in part to "competitive pressures" that had "meaningfully impacted" the Company's margins and further admitted that the Company had lost several large accounts. On this news, the price of Avantor common stock declined $3.50 per share, or more than 23%, from a close of $15.08 per share on October 28, 2025, to close at $11.58 per share on October 29, 2025. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Avantor, Inc. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must submit their papers to the court by December 29, 2025. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click here. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. [GN] B & JCM HOSPITALITY: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ------------------------------------------------------------ Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. B & JCM HOSPITALITY GROUP, L.L.C., Case No. 1:25-cv-24881-KMM (S.D. Fla., Oct. 23, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises and the business(es) located within the commercial property. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial property and restaurant, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial property, in violation of the ADA. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. B & JCM HOSPITALITY GROUP, L.L.C., owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property its general parking lot, paths of travel and walkways, the common areas of the hotel business and the hotel rooms located at the Commercial Property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: jacosta@lawgmp.com. - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Primary Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com BAKER HUGHES: Continues to Defend Reckstin Family Trust Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Baker Hughes Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2025 that the Company continues to defend itself from the Reckstin Family Trust class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On or around February 15, 2023, the lead plaintiff and three additional named plaintiffs in a putative securities class action styled The Reckstin Family Trust, et al., v. C3.ai, Inc., et al., No. 4:22-cv-01413-HSG, filed an amended class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Amended Complaint names the following as defendants: (i) C3.ai., Inc. ("C3 AI"), (ii) certain of C3 AI's current and/or former officers and directors, (iii) certain underwriters for the C3 AI initial public offering (the "IPO"), and (iv) the Company, and its President and CEO (who formerly served as a director on the board of C3 AI). The Amended Complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the IPO and the subsequent period between December 9, 2020 and December 2, 2021, during which BHH LLC held equity investments in C3 AI. The action seeks unspecified damages and the award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees. On February 22, 2024, the Court dismissed the claims against the Company. However, on April 4, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, reasserting their claims against the Company under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. On or around February 14, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint, once again reasserting their claims against the Company under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. At this time, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of these proceedings. Baker Hughes Company is an energy technology company with a diversified portfolio of technologies and services that span the energy and industrial value chain. BANK OF AMERICA: Appeals Class Certification Order in Aldana Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- BANK OF AMERICA, NA is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Mynor Villatoro Aldana, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bank of America, NA, Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00859-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Calzfornia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California's Unfair Competition Law and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. On Nov. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted on Oct. 7, 2025. The Court finds the Plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated the superiority of this class action. The appellate case is entitled Mynor Villatoro Aldana, et al. v. Bank of America, NA, Case No. 25-6649, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 21, 2025. [BN] Defendant-Petitioner BANK OF AMERICA, NA is represented by: Elizabeth L. McKeen, Esq. Ashley Pavel, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949)823-6900 - and - Jonathan D. Hacker, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1625 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 383-5300 BANK OF AMERICA: Martin Sues Over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------- Tava Martin, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:25-cv-00837-MOC-DCK (W.D.N.C., Oct. 23, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and arising from Defendant's willful violations of the FLSA, and for common law claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment. This lawsuit entails unpaid wage claims from hourly "Business Analysts" (referred to herein as "BZAs") who are required to engage in a cumbersome computer bootup and shutdown process off-the-clock before and after their scheduled shifts, as well as upon returning from their unpaid lunch breaks. The Plaintiff seeks to represent in this action all current and former BZAs who are similarly situated to each other in terms of their positions, job duties, pay structure and Defendant's violations of federal and state law. The Defendant knew or should have known how long it takes BZAs to complete their off-the-clock work, and Defendant could have properly compensated Plaintiff and the putative Collective and Class for this work, but did not. The Defendant knew or should have known that BZAs, including Plaintiff, worked overtime hours for which they were not compensated, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a BZA on a hybrid schedule. The Defendant is one of the world's leading financial institutions, serving individuals, small- and middle-market businesses, large corporations, and governments with a full range of banking, investment management and other financial and risk management products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Mills, Esq. BURNS, DAY & PRESNELL, P.A. 2626 Glenwood Ave., Ste. 560, 27608 PO Box 10867, 27605 Raleigh, NC Phone: 919.782.1441 Fax: 919.782.2311 Email: jmills@bdppa.com - and - Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq. ASH LAW, PLLC 43000 W. 9 Mile Rd., Ste. 301 Novi, Michigan 48375 Email: cash@nationalwagelaw.com BAYER AG: $38-Mil. Class Settlement Gets Court Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- Margaret Attridge, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a federal judge granted final approval to a $38 million class action settlement in a case against Bayer over shareholders' claims the German pharmaceutical giant didn't conduct adequate due diligence before making a multibillion-dollar deal to acquire Monsanto. Shareholders sued Bayer in 2020, claiming the company misled them about the litigation risk of purchasing the agrochemical company, whose signature weed killer product Roundup was found to have caused people to develop cancer in three bellwether jury trials. Plaintiffs argued that Bayer forged ahead with the Monsanto acquisition while downplaying the litigation risk to investors and representing that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is non-carcinogenic. The $63 billion deal was struck in 2016 but was not made final until June 2018. Two months later, a San Francisco jury found Monsanto liable for $250 million in punitive damages in the case brought by a school groundskeeper with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. By then, plaintiffs say, Monsanto had racked up thousands of additional personal injury lawsuits, and Bayer's post-merger American depositary receipts plunged significantly. The parties initially reached an agreement in February, and the settlement was preliminarily approved in June by U.S. District Court Chief Judge Richard Seeborg, a Barack Obama appointee. The agreement awards plaintiffs over 9% of the $417 million estimated maximum damages. Nearly $10 million of the settlement will be allocated to attorneys' fees, with $3.3 million set aside for reimbursement of litigation expenses. Over 278,000 class notices were sent to potential class members, leading to more than 153,000 claims as of Oct. 24, Seeborg said in the final approval order. In a statement to Courthouse News, a Bayer spokesperson said the agreement resolves all future claims for the settlement class and does not reflect any admission of wrongdoing or liability. "The Company is pleased that this litigation has been brought to a conclusion and that it can put this matter behind us," they said. Carol Gilden of Cohen Milstein, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told Courthouse News she was pleased with the settlement, describing the case as a "hard-fought dispute." "This was an important securities class action that re-affirms ADR investor rights and the long arm of Uncle Sam to hold foreign companies accountable to U.S. securities laws," she said. [GN] BETTY BLUE USA: Lucius Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Windy Lucius, and other similarly situated individuals v. BETTY BLUE USA CORP, d/b/a Elisabetta Franchi, Case No. 1:25-cv-24896-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 23, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs, under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") for blind-inaccessible website. The Plaintiff uses the internet to help her navigate a world of goods, products and services like the sighted. The internet and websites provide him with a window into the world that he would not otherwise have. The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for offering and maintaining a website that is not fully accessible and independently usable by visually impaired consumers. The Plaintiff could not communicate with or within the Website left him feeling excluded, frustrated, and humiliated, and gave him a sense of isolation and segregation, as he is unable to participate in the same browsing, shopping experience, and access to the same information, sales, and services, as provided at the Website and in the physical location as the non-visually disabled public. The Defendant has violated the provisions of the ADA by failing to interface its website with software used by visually impaired individuals. Thus, Defendant has violated the following provisions either directly or through contractual, licensing or other arrangements. Defendant's violations have resulted in Defendant denying Plaintiff effective communication on the basis of her disability in accordance with the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is legally blind, and substantially limited in performing one or more major life activities, including, but not limited to, seeing, accurately visualizing his world, and adequately traversing obstacles. Betty Blu USA Corp, operates and promotes its "Elisabetta Franchi", stores through its commercial website, https://www.elisabettafranchi.com/us.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq. J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC. 8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: 305-351-2014 Email: cc@cunninghampllc.com legal@cunninghampllc.com BEVERLY SHERBOURNE: Abbate Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beverly Sherbourne, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Michael Abbate, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Beverly Sherbourne, LLC, 755 Tacos LLC, 9145 Sunset Partners LLC, Celw LLC, Change The Channel LLC, DBDJ LLC, Dream Big Sunset LLC, Slab BBQ LLC, Slab Pasadena LLC, Sunset Hotel F&B LLC, The Hwood Group LLC, The Nice Guy LLC, West Beverly Group LLC, Case No. 25STCV31631 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 24, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Beverly Sherbourne LLC is in the Full-Service Restaurants industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Molly A. DeSario, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd., Ste. 300 Los Angeles, CA 90024-4937 Phone: 310-438-5555 Fax: 310-300-1705 Email: mdesario@tomorrowlaw.com BH ANDREWS RIDGE: Walker Suit Removed to D. Maryland ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kendra Walker, on her own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated as to the Class Action Allegations v. BH Andrews Ridge, LLC, et. al, Case No. C-16-CV-25-002653 was removed from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, to the United States District Court for District of Maryland on Oct. 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03496-SAG. The Plaintiff filed the State Court Action against Defendants, BH Andrews Ridge, LLC and Legacy (collectively, "Defendants"), the owner and property manager of the residential apartment complex where Plaintiff resided, for the alleged charging and/or collecting of impermissible and illegal fees. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to address and repair issues with her individual apartment. The Complaint seeks monetary damages due to Defendants' alleged violations of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, and Maryland law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Elchanan "Elliott" Engel, Esq. Brian M. Boyle, Esq. BERMAN, BOYLE & ENGEL LLC 1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 265 Baltimore, MD 21208 Phone: 410-855-4740 Email: ee@bbelaw.com bmb@bbelaw.com BIG STAR: Sylvain Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages, Retaliation -------------------------------------------------------------- Myles O. Sylvain, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Big Star Transit of Florida LLC, and Latanya Biggers, individually, Defendants, Case No. 6:25-cv-02027 (M.D. Fla., October 21, 2025) is an action against the Defendants to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Big Star Transit maintains a policy and practice of misclassifying its employees as "independent contractors" in order to avoid paying minimum wages and overtime compensation as required by the FLSA. The Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages at one and-one-half times his regular rate for hours worked over 40, in violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiff objected to the lack of overtime pay and the unlawful deductions and lodged multiple complaints with his supervisors. On or about September 5, 2025, the Defendants terminated Plaintiff, citing a pretextual reason, says the suit. Plaintiff Sylvain was employed by the Defendants as a non exempt, full-time driver from October 1, 2023 through September 5, 2025, a period of 101 weeks. Big Star Transit is a transportation company that provides medical and paratransit transportation services in Orlando, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com C-STORE SERVICES: Huntley Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against C-Store Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Shayne Huntley, on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. C-Store Services, Inc., Does 1 to 100, Case No. 25CV025315 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Oct. 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." C-Store Services LLC -- https://cstoreservicesllc.com/ -- offers professional excavating construction services as well as spray foam insulation for commercial and residential projects.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arby Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 Arden Ave., Ste. 203 Glendale, CA 91203-4007 Phone: 818-265-1020 Fax: 818-265-1021 Email: arby@calljustice.com CALIBER HOLDINGS: Carrillo Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Efrain Carrillo, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CALIBER HOLDINGS L.L.C., doing business as "Caliber Collision", a California limited liability company; CALIBER HOLDINGS OF CALIFORNIA LLC, doing business as "Caliber Holdings LLC", a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV26758 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Oct. 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10270. The Complaint alleges causes of action for failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; meal period violations; rest period violations; failure to pay wages due upon termination; wage statement violations; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Carrie A. Gonell, Esq. Nancy Nguyen, Esq. Hailey A. Phelan, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653 Phone: +1.714.830.0600 Fax: +1.714.830.0700 Email: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com nancy.nguyen@morganlewis.com hailey.phelan@morganlewis.com CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Jeremy Reich filed a class action lawsuit against Campbell Soup Company. Why: Reich claims Campbell falsely advertises its V8 Energy drinks. Where: The Campbell class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Campbell Soup Company falsely advertises its V8 Energy drinks as being naturally flavored and plant-based. Plaintiff Jeremy Reich filed the class action complaint against Campbell Soup Company on Sept. 8 in California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, Campbell markets its V8 Energy Plus Energy Drinks as being a "naturally flavored plant-based drink." However, Reich claims the V8 Energy drinks contain multiple synthetic additives, including ascorbic acid, citric acid, malic acid, sucralose, niacin, pyridoxine hydrochloride and cyanocobalamin. Reich alleges that the inclusion of these synthetic ingredients renders Campbell's front-label claims that the V8 Energy drinks are "naturally flavored" and "plant-based" false and misleading. Campbell uses synthetic ingredients in V8 Energy drinks, lawsuit alleges Reich claims Campbell's V8 Energy drinks are not truly plant-based because they contain synthetic and highly processed ingredients. The lawsuit argues that the term "plant-based" is misleading to consumers who reasonably believe that such a label means the product only contains water or plant ingredients that have not undergone substantial processing. Reich's lawsuit also points out that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission has guidelines to help companies avoid making misleading and deceptive "plant-based" claims. The lawsuit alleges Campbell ignored these guidelines and used artificial, synthetic or substantially processed ingredients in its V8 Energy drinks. Reich claims Campbell's labeling and advertising practices are misleading to consumers, who may believe they are purchasing a natural and plant-based product when, in fact, the drinks contain synthetic ingredients. Reich also alleges that Campbell failed to disclose the artificial ingredients clearly on the front label, which is what most consumers rely on when making purchasing decisions. He is looking to represent anyone in the United States who purchased Campbell's V8 Energy drinks primarily for consumption. He is suing for violations of California's consumer protection laws and for breach of express warranty and is seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. In 2024, Campbell faced a class action lawsuit accusing the company of falsely advertising its V8 Splash beverages as naturally flavored and healthy for children, even though they are made almost entirely of water and high fructose corn syrup. Reich is represented by Adrian Gucovschi and Nathaniel Haim Sari of Gucovschi Rozenshteyn PLLC. The Campbell class action lawsuit is Reich v. Campbell Soup Company, Case No. 2:25-cv-08501, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] CAREMARK PCS: Flowers Appeals Suit Dismissal to 8th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN FLOWERS is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Kevin Flowers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Caremark PCS Health, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-04031-SOH, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, which was removed from the Circuit Court of Hempstead County, Arkansas, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Arkansas Unfair Practices Act and the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. On Jan. 10, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which Judge Susan O. Hickey granted on Sept. 29, 2025. The case is dismissed without prejudice. Further, the motion to certify class, motion to compel, and motion for status conference are denied as moot. The appellate case is entitled Kevin Flowers v. Caremark PCS Health, LLC, et al., Case No. 25-3068, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on October 17, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant KEVIN FLOWERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Clay Ellis, Esq. Scott E. Poynter, Esq. POYNTER LAW GROUP 4924 Kavanaugh Boulevard Little Rock, AR 72207 Telephone: (501) 812-3943 - and - Jessica Pruitt Koehler, Esq. Rodney Paul Moore, I, Esq. WRIGHT & LINDSEY 200 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 371-0808 Defendants-Appellees CAREMARK PCS HEALTH, LLC, et al. are represented by: John Carter Fairley, Esq. BARBER & MUNSON One Allied Drive, Suite 1600 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 372-6175 - and - Michael Leffel, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER 150 E. Gilman Street, Suite 5000 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 257-5035 - and - Anne-Louise Mittal, Esq. Natalie Pike, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER 777 E. Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 289-3549 - and - Frank E. Pasquesi, Esq. Samantha Saddler, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER 321 N. Clark Street, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 832-4500 CAROLINA HERRERA: Fernandez Sues Over Disability Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- Nelson Fernandez, on behalf of others similarly situated v. CAROLINA HERRERA, LTD., INC, a foreign for-profit corporation, Case No. 9:25-cv-81306-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 23, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://www.carolinaherrera.com/us/en (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the locations of Defendant's physical stores. Defendant also sells to the public its merchandise through the Website, which acts as a critical point of sale for Defendant's merchandise that is also available for purchase in, from, and through Defendant's physical stores. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. The Website does not meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been a visually and physically disabled person who has been medically diagnosed with Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis ("RRMS"). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls three retail stores selling clothing, fragrances, accessories, and makeup, including the store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodenck V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com CASSAVA SCIENCES: Appeals Class Certification Order in Bozorgi Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- CASSAVA SCIENCES, INCORPORATED, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Mohammad Bozorgi, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cassava Sciences, Incorporated, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00751, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. On Aug. 27, 2021, Plaintiff Pierre Brazeau filed in this Court the first securities fraud class action against Cassava, which was followed by four more. On June 30, 2022, the District Court consolidated the cases and appointed Mohammad Bozorgi as Lead Plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead Counsel. On June 20, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a renewed opposed motion for class certification, which Judge David A. Ezra granted on Aug. 12, 2025. The Court finds that adjudicating this case as a class action is the superior method. Because the Plaintiffs meet all requirements under Rule 23 to certify this class action, the Court concludes the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Rule 23 is granted. Therefore, the Court certifies a class of all purchasers or acquirers of Cassava common stock or call options on Cassava common stock or sellers of put options on Cassava common stock (Cassava Securities) between September 14, 2020 and October 12, 2023. The appellate case is entitled Bozorgi v. Cassava Sciences, Case No. 25-50855, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on October 21, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees MOHAMMAD BOZORGI, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Joseph David Daley, I, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, L.L.P. 655 W. Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Defendants-Appellants CASSAVA SCIENCES, INCORPORATED, et al. are represented by: Gregg Costa, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, L.L.P. 811 Main Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (346) 718-6600 - and - Zachary Rowen Taylor, I, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER, L.L.P. 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4645 CDA INC: Buckner Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Tanisha Latrese Buckner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CDA Inc. DBA MaxSent; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. CGC-25-629410 was removed from in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for Northern District of California on Oct. 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-09176-KAW. The Complaint asserts seven causes of action against MaxSent stemming from the employment of Plaintiff and the putative class members. Specifically, the Complaint alleges: Failure to Provide Compliant Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Compliant Rest Periods; Failure to Pay for All Hours Worked; Failure to Pay All Overtime Owed; Failure to Reimburse Work- Related Expenses; Wage Statement Penalties; and Violation of Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Robin Largent, Esq. MARTENSON, HASBROUCK & SIMON LLP 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 970-1433 Email: rlargent@martensonlaw.com CENTRAL JERSEY MEDICAL: Batista Files Suit in N.J. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Jersey Medical Center, Inc. The case is styled as Josefina Batista, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Central Jersey Medical Center, Inc., Case No. L-007525-25 (N.J. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., Oct. 23, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as "Other Tort." Central Jersey Medical Center -- https://www.cjmc.us/ -- provides primary health, dental and preventive services to you and your family.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Svensson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (202) 975-0468 Email: msvensson@zlk.com CENTRAL JERSEY MEDICAL: Deschamps Files Suit in N.J. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Jersey Medical Center, Inc. The case is styled as Nestor Deschamps, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Central Jersey Medical Center, Inc., Case No. L-007530-25 (N.J. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., Oct. 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Tort." Central Jersey Medical Center -- https://www.cjmc.us/ -- provides primary health, dental and preventive services to you and your family.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: (954) 535-4100 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com CENTRAL JERSEY MEDICAL: Marshall Files Suit in N.J. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Jersey Medical Center, Inc. The case is styled as Brenda Marshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Central Jersey Medical Center, Inc., Case No. L-007531-25 (N.J. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., Oct. 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Tort." Central Jersey Medical Center -- https://www.cjmc.us/ -- provides primary health, dental and preventive services to you and your family.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Phone: (917) 336-0171 Fax: (917) 336-0177 Email: bking@ahdootwolfson.com CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Radiology Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Radiology Associates of North Idaho, Inc., and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Change Healthcare Technology Enabled Services, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00483 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on Oct. 24, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-04005-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Change Healthcare Inc. -- https://www.changehealthcare.com/ -- is a provider of revenue and payment cycle management that connects payers, providers, and patients within the U.S. healthcare system.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig D Dillard, Esq. Jason P. Sharp, Esq. Kiara C. Gradney, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 1111 Bagby Street, Suite 2100 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (346) 646-3589 Fax: (346) 241-3758 Email: craig.dillard@nelsonmullins.com - and - Katherine Ann Spicer NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 1400 Wewatta St., Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (202) 689-2917 Email: katy.spicer@nelsonmullins.com The Defendant is represented by: Arielle S. Anderson, Esq. Catherine Bratic, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS 609 Main Street, Ste. 4200 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 632-1400 Fax: (713) 632-1401 Email: arielle.anderson@hoganlovells.com catherine.bratic@hoganlovells.com - and - Elijah Martin Watkins, Esq. Hailee Elledge, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 101 S. Capitol Blvd, Suite 1100 Boise, ID 83702 Phone: (208) 617-2537 Fax: (208) 963-3046 Email: watkins.elijah@dorsey.com elledge.hailee@dorsey.com - and - Peter H. Walsh, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 80 South 8th Street, Ste. 1225 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 402-3017 Email: peter.walsh@hoganlovells.com CHELSEA ROYAL CARE: Norris Sues Over Discriminative Property ------------------------------------------------------------ Namel Norris, and other similar situated v. CHELSEA ROYAL CARE PHARMACY, INC., a New York corporation, d/b/a CHELSEA ROYAL CARE PHARMACY, and S-PLATFORM HQ LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company, Case No. 1:25-cv-08763 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 22, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs (including, but not limited to, court costs and expert fees) pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), and the new York State human rights law ("NYSHRL") as a result of the Defendants' have discriminative Property. The Defendants have discriminated, and continue to discriminate, against the Plaintiff, and others who are similarly situated, by denying full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations at Defendants' Property, and by failing to remove architectural barriers, where such removal is readily achievable. The Plaintiff has been unable to, and continues to be unable to, enjoy full and equal safe access to, and the benefits of, all the accommodations and services offered at Defendants' Property, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic and uses a wheelchair for mobility. CHELSEA ROYAL CARE PHARMACY, INC., is the lessee and/or operator of the real property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: B. Bradley Weitz, Esq. Robert J. Mirel, Esq. THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A. Bank of America Building 18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214 Aventura, Florida 33160 phone: (305) 949-7777 Facsimile: (305) 704-3877 Email: bbw@weitzfirm.com rjm@weitzfirm.com CIRCLE INTERNET: Newton AC/DC Suit Removed to S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Newton AC/DC Fund, L.P., Scallion Trading Ltd., and Stanton Street Capital Partners, Inc., individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. CIRCLE INTERNET GROUP, INC., and CIRCLE INTERNET FINANCIAL, LLC, Case No. 654157/2025 was removed from in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, to the United States District Court for Southern District of New York on Oct. 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-08838. In the Complaint, the Fund, domiciled in Delaware, Florida, and Massachusetts, asserted state-law claims for declaratory judgment and constructive trust against Circle LLC, incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Massachusetts.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Harold K. Gordon, Esq. Alexander J. Wilson, Esq. JONES DAY 250 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281.1047 Phone: +1.212.326.3740 Facsimile: +1.212.755.7306 Email: hkgordon@jonesday.com alexanderwilson@jonesday.com CLASSPASS USA LLC: Struck Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Alex Struck and Simon Mccoy, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLASSPASS USA LLC, a Virginia limited liability company; MINDBODY, INC., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV25107 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Oct. 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-09478-SPG-MAA. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA"), violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Allexanderia Bingham, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 2000 Avenue of the Stars Suite 400, North Tower Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 595-3123 Fax: (310) 595-3323 Email: allexanderia.bingham@us.dlapiper.com - and - Keara M. Gordon, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 335-4500 Fax: (917) 778-8037 Email: keara.gordon@us.dlapiper.com CLICK SALES INC: Mejico Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Click Sales Inc. The case is styled as Brittney Mejico, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Click Sales Inc., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a CLICKBANK.COM, Case No. 25CU057617C (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., Oct. 24, 2025). ClickBank -- https://www.clickbank.com/ -- is a global e-commerce platform and affiliate marketplace founded in 1998.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com CLINTONVILLE CLEANER: Norris Sues Over Discriminative Property -------------------------------------------------------------- Namel Norris, and other similar situated v. CLINTONVILLE CLEANER CORPORATION, a New York corporation, d/b/a CLINTONVILLE CLEANER, and MUNICH PRODUCTIONS INC., a New York corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-08764 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 22, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs (including, but not limited to, court costs and expert fees) pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), and the new York State human rights law ("NYSHRL") as a result of the Defendants' have discriminative Property. The Defendants have discriminated, and continue to discriminate, against the Plaintiff, and others who are similarly situated, by denying full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations at Defendants' Property, and by failing to remove architectural barriers, where such removal is readily achievable. The Plaintiff has been unable to, and continues to be unable to, enjoy full and equal safe access to, and the benefits of, all the accommodations and services offered at Defendants' Property, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic and uses a wheelchair for mobility. CLINTONVILLE CLEANER CORPORATION, is the lessee and/or operator of the real property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: B. Bradley Weitz, Esq. Robert J. Mirel, Esq. THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A. Bank of America Building 18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214 Aventura, Florida 33160 phone: (305) 949-7777 Facsimile: (305) 704-3877 Email: bbw@weitzfirm.com rjm@weitzfirm.com CME GROUP: Continues to Defend Certificates of Incorporation Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- CME Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2025 that the Company continues to defend itself from the certificates of incorporation class suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division. A putative class action complaint was filed January 15, 2014 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, against CME Group Inc. and the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc. The plaintiffs, certain Class B shareholders of CME Group and Class B members of CBOT, allege breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for violations of their core rights granted in the defendants' respective Certificates of Incorporation. On December 2, 2021, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for certification of a damages-only class. In early 2024, the defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. On April 16, 2025, the court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part, and set the remaining claims for a jury trial. After a three week trial, on July 25, 2025, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the defendants on all counts. Plaintiffs have filed a post-trial motion seeking a new trial, and the Company expects the plaintiffs to appeal the verdict should the post-trial motions be denied. In addition, the company is a defendant in, and has potential for, various other legal proceedings arising from its regular business activities. While the ultimate results of such proceedings against the company cannot be predicted with certainty, the company believes that the resolution of any of these matters on an individual or aggregate basis will not have a material impact on its consolidated financial position or results of operations. No accrual was required for contingent legal and regulatory matters as none were probable and estimable as of September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024. CME Group Inc., headquartered in Chicago, operates financial derivatives exchanges including the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Chicago Board of Trade, New York Mercantile Exchange, and TheCommodity Exchange. COMFRT LLC: Saini Sues Over Fake Advertised "Sale" Prices --------------------------------------------------------- TRISHA SAINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMFRT LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-10093 (C.D. Cal., October 21, 2025) arises from the Defendant's violations of the California Business and Professions Code, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law by disseminating products' untrue and misleading advertisements to Plaintiff and class members. According to the complaint, the Defendant advertises purported regular prices and purported limited-time sales offering steep discounts from products' listed regular prices. The Defendant consistently advertises sales of "Up to 50% OFF," "Up to 60% OFF," and "Up to 70% OFF" with a constant stream of promotions. As soon as one ends, the next one immediately begins. The representations that Plaintiff relied on, however, were not true. The purported regular prices Defendant advertised were not the true regular prices at which Defendant usually sells the Products. The purported discounts were not true discounts, and the sales were ongoing -- not time-limited. Had Defendant been truthful, Plaintiff and other consumers like her would not have purchased the Products, or would have paid less for them, says the suit. Comfrt LLC manufactures, distributes, markets, and sells hoodies, sweatpants, blankets, loungewear, and accessories. Comfrt sells its products directly to consumers, including through its website, www.comfrt.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rick Lyon, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: rick@dovel.com COMPLETE CLOTHING: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. COMPLETE CLOTHING ACQUISITION, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-08768 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2025), is brought against the Defendant (or "Dose Daily"), 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, www.shopmattym.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. COMPLETE CLOTHING ACQUISITION, LLC, operates the Shop Matty M. online retail store, as well as the Shop Matty M. 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 CORE SCIENTIFIC: Continues to Defend Ihle Class Suit in Delaware ---------------------------------------------------------------- Core Scientific Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2025 that the Company continues to defend itself from the Ihle class suit in the Court of Chancery State of Delaware. On July 24, 2023, Plaintiff Brad Ihle filed a class action complaint against certain officers and directors of Power & Digital Infrastructure Acquisition Corp. (the former name of the current corporate entity operating our business, or "XPDI") and XMS Sponsor LLC et al, in the Court of Chancery State of Delaware. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties arising out of the merger of XPDI and the entity that conducted its business operations prior to the merger and the marketing and solicitation of shareholders pursuant to that merger agreement dated July 20, 2021. Certain of the defendants have notified the Company of their intention to seek defense and indemnification in this matter pursuant to Delaware law and the Company’s bylaws. As of September 30, 2025, the Company had accrued $15.0 million related to the expected settlement of this matter. Core Scientific, Inc. (OTCMKTS: CORZQ) is the largest U.S. publicly-traded Bitcoin mining company in computing power. Core Scientific, which was formed following a business combination in July 2021 with blank check company XPDI, is a large-scale operator of dedicated, purpose-built facilities for digital asset mining colocation services and a provider of blockchain infrastructure, software solutions and services. Core mines Bitcoin, Ethereum and other digital assets for third-party hosting customers and for its own account at its six fully operational data centers in North Carolina (2), Georgia (2), North Dakota (1) and Kentucky (1). Core was formed following a business combination in July 2021 with XPDI, a blank check company. CULTURE KINGS: Wright Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Jazmine Wright, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CULTURE KINGS USA, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-08826 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), arising from Defendant's failure to ensure that its ecommerce website, www.culturekings.com, is accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Despite its public-facing ecommerce model and national reach, Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website in a manner that is fully accessible to blind and visually impaired users, thereby denying Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals full and equal access to its goods and services in violation of the ADA. On multiple occasions in September and October 2025, Plaintiff attempted to access www.culturekings.com using NVDA screen reader software. Her intent was to browse and purchase products from Culture Kings' "New Arrivals" collection, including items marketed for chemically sensitized skin and post-injury care. These products were selected based on her specific needs and Culture Kings' reputation for curated global brands. The Plaintiff was unable to complete her intended transactions due to persistent digital access barriers. These included unlabeled buttons, inaccessible modal dialogs, broken skip links, and ARIA implementation errors that rendered key content—including product descriptions, pricing, and checkout functionality—unreadable by screen reader software, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a legally blind resident of Bronx, New York. The Defendant owns and operates www.culturekings.com, a commercial website offering streetwear, accessories, and personal care products to consumers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com DAVIS WIRE: Mazariegos Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jesse S. Mazariegos Jr., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DAVIS WIRE CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV26595 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Oct. 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10241. The Complaint contains eight causes of action, alleging: Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks; 5. Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Timely Pav Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Stacey E. James, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101.3577 Phone: 619.232.0441 Facsimile: 619.232.4302 Email: sjames@littler.com - and - Harman S. Deol, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415.433.1940 Facsimile: 415.399.8490 Email: hdeol@littler.com DELPHON INDUSTRIES: Begum Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Delphon Industries, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Sakeena Begum, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Delphon Industries, LLC, Case No. 25CV151163 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Oct. 24, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Delphon -- https://www.delphon.com/ -- provides innovative polymer and adhesive solutions to high-technology industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Franz T. Reece, Esq. LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC 880 Apollo St., Ste. 336 El Segundo, CA 90245-4783 Phone: 310-322-2211 Fax: 310-322-2252 Email: franz@kallaw.com DERMARITE INDUSTRIES: Wright Files Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DermaRite Industries, LLC. The case is styled as LaTonya Wright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DermaRite Industries, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05977 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. DermaRite -- https://dermarite.com/ -- manufactures high quality skin care, advanced wound care & nutritional supplements for healthcare and senior-care facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 Fax: (516) 747-5024 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com DFA DAIRY BRANDS: Cornwell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DFA Dairy Brands Fluid LLC, et al. The case is styled as Darrin Cornwell, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DFA Dairy Brands Fluid LLC, Heartland Farms LLC, Case No. 25STCV31125 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." DFA Dairy Brands Fluid LLC -- https://www.dfamilk.com/ -- is a farmer-owned dairy cooperative and global leader in manufacturing high-quality dairy products for communities worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah H. Cohen, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-438-5555 Email: sarah@tomorrowlaw.com DIAGEO NORTH: Moves to Dismiss Tequila Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Nicola Carruthers, writing The Spirits Business, reports that on May 5, a class action lawsuit was filed against Diageo North America alleging that its Don Julio and Casamigos brands contain non-agave alcohol. Consumers Avi Pusateri and Chaim Mishulovin, and restaurant Sushi Tokyo, filed the class action lawsuit against Diageo North America with the US District Court of the Eastern District of New York. It was followed by similar lawsuits filed in San Francisco, California and the second in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The latter was filed by Nabil Haschemie on May 15 and was described by Diageo as a "copycat" of the New York filing, which was submitted 10 days earlier. In July, Diageo filed its initial response to the legal action, denying the allegations. In August, eight new plaintiffs from eight different states (Hawaii, Louisiana, Illinois, California, Colorado, Texas, Georgia, and Pennsylvania) joined Haschemie's class action suit. The plaintiffs are Haschemie, Francisco Javier Barberi, Alex Katz, Jeffrey Schneider, Bryan Armbruster, Samuel Gemus, Justin Frank Harkness, Leo Suarez and Jonathan Mcdonald. The London-headquartered drinks giant has now filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuits in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Diageo said in a statement: "We have moved to dismiss this complaint as the allegations are implausible, lacking legal and logical merit. The plaintiffs hinge their allegations on a scientifically unvalidated test; this is simply copycat conjecture based on other sham complaints. "As previously stated, we are confident in our defence as all bottled Casamigos and Don Julio Tequilas labelled as '100% agave' are just that -- proudly made from 100% Blue Weber agave." In its latest legal filing, Diageo claims that the lawsuit filed in Florida was nearly identical to the one that was submitted in New York. According to Diageo, Haschemie acknowledged that his lawsuit was a "me too" filing and that he allegedly only sued after becoming aware of the New York lawsuit. This prompted him to conduct undisclosed testing. Diageo alleges that the class action lawsuit is based on "incomplete and vaguely described results from a single European company's 'test'". This test, which Diageo described as unvalidated, used one sample from Casamigos and one sample from Don Julio. Theory equal to 'earth is flat' claim The company noted that their claims are "implausible" adding that this test "somehow proves, according to them, that every bottle of Tequila Diageo has sold for decades was not, as the label states, '100% agave'." Diageo said: "Their [testing] theory is the equivalent of someone claiming the earth is flat because he saw a 'test' result somewhere that says his neighbour's backyard is level." The company also pointed out that the plaintiffs had not purported "any flaw or vulnerability in Diageo's meticulous and rigorously monitored Tequila-making process, any failure of internal controls, any disclosure, investigation, or judicial finding, nor any whistle-blower" to support their claim. Furthermore, Diageo went on to claim that its Tequilas are made with "one of the most careful, comprehensive, rigorous and highly regulation production processes of any spirit in the world". Diageo argued that the so-called results from the 'test' are "so threadbare, relying on a single testing method scientifically unproven for Tequila, purportedly performed on two samples for which they report incomplete results (disclosing only one of three numbers needed to even begin to understand their results), that it is impossible to determine what they did, with whom, when, where and how". The Consejo Regulador del Tequila (CRT), the regulatory body for Tequila, oversees the Tequila NOM (Norma Oficial Mexicana), a four-digit number that is required to be classified as an official Tequila brand. Diageo claims its '100% agave' labelling complies with Mexico's NOM and US laws, which includes label approval from the government's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). The company noted that it must obtain annual certification from the CRT to authorise Diageo to produce 100% agave Tequila. Each batch of Tequila for export must also receive a certificate of authenticity from the CRT. By retail sales value, Diageo is the largest producer of Tequila in the world, the motion to dismiss filing noted. 'Massive deception' Regarding the initial complaint in New York, Diageo said it "did not include any purported test results or other allegations to support its meritless claims -- only citations to a few blog posts that do not mention Diageo and a single conclusory allegation that unidentified testing 'confirmed' that Don Julio and Casamigos Tequilas 'did not meet the regulatory requirements' for 100% agave". Diageo said the plaintiffs backed their claims by pointing to several blog posts -- including one from Mezcalistas -- that included "speculative, unsubstantiated statements" from agave farmer protesters that allege Tequila producers are 'mixing cane alcohol into Tequila' that is then sold as 100% agave". These posts did not mention Diageo, Don Julio or Casamigos. Diageo argues that the plaintiffs had attempted to create a "story of massive deception spanning two brands, numerous product lines, multiple facilities, and hundreds of people, including independent regulators -- without a single supporting factual allegation". Transparency in the Tequila industry and the use of additives have been a contentious issue in the sector. In April, Bacardi said it was in "constructive conversations" with the CRT to address the topic of additives transparently following a temporary ban on Patrón exports. A month earlier, the CRT took legal action against the Additive Free Alliance, which had previously published a list of Tequila brands it deemed to be 'additive-free'. [GN] DNH BERGEN: Torres Sues Over Discriminative Property ---------------------------------------------------- Julia Torres, and other similar situated v. DNH BERGEN ESTATE LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company, d/b/a DNH BERGEN ESTATE-ANDERSON AVENUE, Case No. 2:25-cv-16844-SDW-JBC (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. DNH BERGEN ESTATE 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 DOW INC: Faces Securities Class Suit in Michigan ------------------------------------------------ Dow Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2025 that the Company faces securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. On August 29, 2025, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and its Chief Operating Officer due to alleged false and misleading statements regarding the Company's ability to navigate macroeconomic and tariff-related pressures, competitive and pricing pressures and softening demand, and the Company's ability to sustain its dividend, which allegedly caused the Company's securities to trade at artificially inflated prices. The action seeks unspecified compensatory damages. Dow is an American materials science company, serving customers in the packaging, infrastructure, mobility, and consumer applications industries.[BN] EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Frederick Files Suit in D. Connecticut --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Edgewell Personal Care Company, et al. The case is styled as Jillian Frederick, Ching Yu Yang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Edgewell Personal Care Company, Schick US, Case No. 3:25-cv-01663-SFR (D. Conn., Oct. 3, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Edgewell Personal Care Company -- https://edgewell.com/ -- is an American multinational consumer products company headquartered in Shelton, Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurie Rubinow, Esq. MILLER SHAH LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Phone: (866) 540-5505 Fax: (866) 300-7367 Email: lrubinow@millershah.com EFINANCIAL LLC: Parrish Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Efinancial, LLC. The case is styled as Dontae Parrish, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Efinancial, LLC d/b/a Fidelity Life, Case No. 2:25-cv-06051 (W.D. Pa., Oct. 22, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Efinancial, LLC doing business as Fidelity Life -- https://fidelitylife.com/ -- is New Zealand's largest locally-owned life insurer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC 21031 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364-6522 Phone: 323-306-4234 Fax: 866-633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com ELEV8 COMMERCIAL: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property --------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. ELEV8 COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT I, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-24905-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 24, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial property and restaurant, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial property, in violation of the ADA. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. ELEV8 COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT I, LLC, owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property its general parking lot, paths of travel, walkways, and the common areas of the Commercial Property located in Miami Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: jacosta@lawgmp.com. - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Primary Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com ELEVENTY USA: Espinoza Sues Over Discriminative Website ------------------------------------------------------- Alejandro Espinoza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ELEVENTY USA LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company D/B/A ELEVENTY, Case No. 1:25-cv-24880-CMA (S.D. Fla., Oct. 23, 2025), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), as a result of the Defendant's discriminative website. The Defendant was and still is an organization owning and operating the website located at https://eleventymilano.com/. Since the website is open through the internet to the public as an extension of the retail stores, by this nexus the website is an intangible service, privilege and advantage of Defendant's brick and mortar locations, the Defendant has subjected itself and the associated website it created and maintains to the requirements of the ADA. The website also services Defendant's physical stores by providing information on its brand and other information that Defendant is interested in communicating to its customers about its physical locations. Although the Website appeared to have an "accessibility" statement displayed and an "accessibility" widget/plugin added, the "accessibility" statement and widget/plugin, when tested, still could not be effectively accessed by, and continued to be a barrier to, blind and visually disabled persons, including Plaintiff as a completely blind person. Plaintiff, although she attempted to access the statement, thus, was unable to receive any meaningful or prompt assistance through the "accessibility" statement and the widget/plugin to enable her to quickly, fully, and effectively navigate the Website, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses the computer regularly, but due to his visual disability, Plaintiff cannot use his computer without the assistance of appropriate and available auxiliary aids, screen reader software, and other technology and assistance. ELEVENTY is a company that sells men, women, and kids clothing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diego German Mendez, Esq. MENDEZ LAW OFFICES, PLLC P.O. BOX 228630 Miami, FL 33172 Phone: 305.264.9090 Facsimile: 1-305.809.8474 Email: info@mendezlawoffices.com - and - Richard J. Adams, Esq. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 6500 Cowpen Road, Suite 101 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Phone: 786-290-1963 Facsimile: 305-824-3868 Email: radamslaw7@gmail.com ELI LILLY: Files Writ of Certiorari Petition to U.S. Supreme Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, et al. filed on October 17, 2025, a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, under Case No. 25-476, seeking a review of a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dated August 5, 2025, in the case captioned Eli Lilly and Company, et al., Petitioners vs. Monica Richards, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No. 24-2574. The complaint is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Massachusetts Anti-Discrimination Law. Defendants-Petitioners ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, et al. are represented by: Noel John Francisco, Esq. JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 879-3939 Email: njfrancisco@jonesday.com EVERYDAY HEALTH: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Ramirez Says ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID RAMIREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVERYDAY HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-10137 (C.D. Cal., October 22, 2025) asserts statutory and common law claims against Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff and Class Members for: (i) invasion of privacy; (ii) invasion of privacy under the California Constitution; (iii) violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act; (iv) negligence; (v) unjust enrichment; and (vi) violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Everyday Health operates one of the Internet's most-visited and mental health information websites, https://www.everydayhealth.com. Through the website, Everyday Health provides users the ability to research their own physical and mental health conditions as well as to search, by specific practice area, doctors, therapists, and other health professionals who treat those conditions and to book in-person appointments with those health care professionals. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and other users to Everyday Health's website, their private personal and health information was not actually being kept private. Instead, through its website, Everyday Health collected and transmitted personally identifiable information as well personal health information pertaining to Plaintiff and other customers. The Plaintiff and Class Members gave no informed consent for information about their sensitive health information to be transmitted to the third parties, including the largest advertiser and compiler of user information, Google. As a result of Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, alleges the suit. Everyday Health is an American online publication focused on health news and information.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Langley, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Ave. Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (773) 554-9354 E-mail: matt@almeidalawgroup.com FCS SNEAKERS INC: Solis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Roberto Solis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FCS SNEAKERS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05933 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.fcssneakers.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff now 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, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com FIRST SOLAR INCORPORATED: Gallardo Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jose Gallardo, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. First Solar Incorporated, Case No. 2:25-cv-02473 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on Oct. 21, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02263-JJH to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. First Solar, Inc. -- http://www.firstsolar.com/-- is America's leading photovoltaic (PV) solar technology and manufacturing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher P. Wido, Esq. SPITZ LAW 3 Summit Park Drive, Ste. 200 Independence, OH 44131 Phone: (216) 364-1330 Fax: (216) 291-5744 Email: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Carrie L. Urrutia, Esq. Elizabeth L. Bolduc, Esq. EASTMAN & SMITH-TOLEDO One Seagate, 27th Floor P.O. Box 10032 Toledo, OH 43699-0032 Phone: (419) 241-6000 Fax: (419) 247-1777 clurrutia@eastmansmith.com elbolduc@eastmansmith.com FONDA OF CHELSEA: Norris Sues Over Discriminative Property ---------------------------------------------------------- Namel Norris, and other similar situated v. FONDA OF CHELSEA, LLC, a New York limited liability company, d/b/a FONDA OF CHELSEA, and LANGER 189, LLC, a New York limited liability company, Case No. 1:25-cv-08767 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 22, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs (including, but not limited to, court costs and expert fees) pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), and the new York State human rights law ("NYSHRL") as a result of the Defendants' have discriminative Property. The Defendants have discriminated, and continue to discriminate, against the Plaintiff, and others who are similarly situated, by denying full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations at Defendants' Property, and by failing to remove architectural barriers, where such removal is readily achievable. The Plaintiff has been unable to, and continues to be unable to, enjoy full and equal safe access to, and the benefits of, all the accommodations and services offered at Defendants' Property, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic and uses a wheelchair for mobility. FONDA OF CHELSEA, LLC, is the lessee and/or operator of the real property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: B. Bradley Weitz, Esq. Robert J. Mirel, Esq. THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A. Bank of America Building 18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214 Aventura, Florida 33160 phone: (305) 949-7777 Facsimile: (305) 704-3877 Email: bbw@weitzfirm.com rjm@weitzfirm.com FORBIDDEN PLANET: Solis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Roberto Solis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FORBIDDEN PLANET IP HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05934 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website, www.fpnyc.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff now 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, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com FUTUREPLAN ADMINISTRATIVE: Chant Sues Over Illegal Restatement Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------- CHANT & COMPANY A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION, and CHANT YEDALIAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FUTUREPLAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC, and ASCENSUS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-02882 (N.D. Tex., October 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for fraud, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. According to the complaint, the Defendants solicited and received $2,700 from Plaintiffs for a "restatement" that was supposed to render their pension plan valid for six years but then, nearly 11 months later, the Defendants turned around and, as a condition of continuing to service the plan, required the signing of a so-called "service agreement" that waived substantial rights. When Plaintiffs would not waive rights as demanded by Defendants, Defendants stopped providing service for the pension plan. As such, in addition to other remedies pled in this Complaint, exemplary damages are also sought against the Defendants, says the suit. Chant & Company, as an employer of Chant Yedalian, and for the benefit of Mr. Yedalian as an employee, sponsors a defined benefit pension plan known as Chant & Company A Professional Law Corporation Defined Benefit Pension Plan. FuturePlan Administrative Services provides pension plan and other retirement related services and goods in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chant Yedalian, Esq. CHANT & COMPANY A Professional Law Corporation 709 Alexander Ln Rockwall, TX 75087 Telephone: (877) 574-7100 Facsimile: (877) 574-9411 E-mail: chant@chant.mobi FYF-EVE'S LLC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FYF-Eve's, LLC d/b/a Brook & York, Case No. 0:25-cv-04097 (D. Minn., Oct. 23, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.brookandyork.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") 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 its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends 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. The 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 Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers jewelry and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, necklaces, bracelets, rings, earrings, anklets, pendants, chains, custom jewelry, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com GAINFUL HEALTH INC: Coronado Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gainful Health Inc. The case is styled as Mario Coronado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gainful Health Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-08791 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Gainful -- https://www.gainful.com/ -- is a personalized sports nutrition company that offers subscriptions to its Hydration line of electrolyte drink mixes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (813) 340-8838 Email: zane@jibraellaw.com GEMINI EXPRESS: Blandon Suit Transferred to E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Michael Blandon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Gemini Express Transport Corp., Henry Fung, Case No. 1:25-cv-04665 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Oct. 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-05924-NCM-JRC to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Gemini Express Transport Corp. -- https://www.gemini-express.com/ -- specializes in a diverse range of freight solutions, including express same-day delivery, full truckload, and less-than-truckload services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gianfranco J. Cuadra, Esq. Rachell Esmeralda Henriquez, Esq. Vivianna Alexandra Morales, Esq. Louis Pechman, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 488 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 583-9500 Fax: (212) 308-8582 Email: cuadra@pechmanlaw.com henriquez@pechmanlaw.com morales@pechmanlaw.com pechman@pechmanlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Ge Qu, Esq. Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Phone: (718) 353-8588 Fax: (718) 353-6288 Email: rqu@hanglaw.com jhang@hanglaw.com GENERAL DYNAMICS: Continues to Defend Sherman Act Class Suit in Va. ------------------------------------------------------------------- General Dynamics Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 28, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2025 that the Company continues to defend itself from the Sherman Act-related class suit in the Court of United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On October 6, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against General Dynamics Corporation, certain of its subsidiaries and various other companies alleging that they conspired, in violation of the Sherman Act, not to solicit naval architects and marine engineers from each other. The named plaintiffs purport to represent a class of individuals consisting of all naval architects and marine engineers employed by the shipyard and consultancy defendants, their predecessors, their subsidiaries and/or their related entities in the United States at any time since January 1, 2000. The plaintiffs allege that the conspiracy suppressed compensation paid to the putative class members, and the plaintiffs seek trebled monetary damages, attorneys' fees, injunctive and other equitable relief. The Company is defending the matter. On April 19, 2024, the District Court dismissed the plaintiffs complaint. On May 9, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the decision of the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings. On September 11, 2025, the defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. Given the current status of this matter, the Company is unable to express a view regarding the ultimate outcome or, if the outcome is adverse, to estimate an amount or range of reasonably possible loss. Depending on the outcome of this matter, there could be a material impact on its results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. General Dynamics Corporation is a diversified defense company. The Company offers a broad portfolio of products and services in business aviation, combat vehicles, weapons systems, munitions, shipbuilding design and construction, information systems, andtechnologies. [BN] GENERAL PRODUCE: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Produce Distribution Company, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Francisco Villarruel, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. General Produce Distribution Company, LLC, Does 1-100, Case No. 25CV025309 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." General Produce -- https://generalproduce.com/ -- has been a leading distributor and exporter of fresh fruits and vegetables.[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 GOLDEN WEST TRADING: Ochoa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Golden West Trading, Inc. The case is styled as Benjamin Reyes Ochoa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Golden West Trading, Inc., Case No. 25NWCV03788 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 23, 2025). Golden West Trading, Inc. -- https://www.gwfg.com/ -- are a premium manufacturer and distributor of high-quality fine food products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Ginzburg, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 6200 Canoga Ave., Suite 470 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (818) 914-3433 Fax: (818) 914-3433 Email: dan@frontierlawcenter.com GULPERI LLC: Cheli Sues Over Inaccessible Property -------------------------------------------------- Charlene Cheli, an individual, on her own behalf and on the behalf of all other similarly situated v. GULPERI, LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-16863 (D.N.J., Oct. 23, 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 visited the Property on many occasions (both before and after becoming fully disabled and requiring the constant use of a wheelchair), her last visit having occurred in May 2025. The Plaintiff has visited the Property with the intent to avail herself of the goods and services offered to the public within but found that the Property a contained a litany of ADA violations – both in architecture and policy. 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, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a mobility impaired person. GULPERI, LLC, owns and/or operates a place of public accommodation, in this instance a restaurant and bar.[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 HARBOUR RESTAURANT: Espinoza Sues Over Discriminative Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Alejandro Espinoza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HARBOUR RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company D/B/A MAKOTO, Case No. 1:25-cv-24914-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 24, 2025), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), as a result of the Defendant's discriminative website. The Defendant was and still is an organization owning and operating the website located at https://makoto-restaurant.com/. Since the website is open through the internet to the public as an extension of the retail stores, by this nexus the website is an intangible service, privilege and advantage of Defendant's brick and mortar locations, the Defendant has subjected itself and the associated website it created and maintains to the requirements of the ADA. The website also services Defendant's physical stores by providing information on its brand and other information that Defendant is interested in communicating to its customers about its physical locations. Although the Website appeared to have an "accessibility" statement displayed and an "accessibility" widget/plugin added, the "accessibility" statement and widget/plugin, when tested, still could not be effectively accessed by, and continued to be a barrier to, blind and visually disabled persons, including Plaintiff as a completely blind person. Plaintiff, although she attempted to access the statement, thus, was unable to receive any meaningful or prompt assistance through the "accessibility" statement and the widget/plugin to enable her to quickly, fully, and effectively navigate the Website, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses the computer regularly, but due to his visual disability, Plaintiff cannot use his computer without the assistance of appropriate and available auxiliary aids, screen reader software, and other technology and assistance. HARBOUR RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a MAKOTO, is a company that sells starters, salad, rice, noodles, fish, meat, sushi, dessert, and drinks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diego German Mendez, Esq. MENDEZ LAW OFFICES, PLLC P.O. BOX 228630 Miami, FL 33172 Phone: 305.264.9090 Facsimile: 1-305.809.8474 Email: info@mendezlawoffices.com - and - Richard J. Adams, Esq. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 6500 Cowpen Road, Suite 101 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Phone: 786-290-1963 Facsimile: 305-824-3868 Email: radamslaw7@gmail.com HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Harman International Industries, Incorporated d/b/a JBL, Case No. 0:25-cv-04055 (D. Minn., Oct. 21, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.jbl.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") 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 its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends 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. The 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 Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers audio equipment and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, portable speakers, home audio equipment, headphones, earbuds, gaming equipment, speakers, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com HARTIN ASSET: Hileman Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hartin Asset Management, LLC. The case is styled as Jaime Hileman, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Hartin Asset Management, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01079-LJV (W.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Hartin Asset Management is a nationally licensed third-party debt collection company headquartered in Cheektowaga.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (813) 340-8838 Email: zane@jibraellaw.com HERMES INTERNATIONAL: Cavalleri Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ TINA CAVALLERI, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Tina Cavalleri, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Hermes International, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01707-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Sherman Act. On Oct. 11, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Oct. 25, 2024. On Sept. 17, 2025, Judge James Donato entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs failed to cure the deficiencies in their SAC's federal claims. Consequently, further leave to amend is not warranted. The case is dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is entitled Cavalleri, et al. v. Hermes International, et al., Case No. 25-6587, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 20, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 27, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on December 1, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on December 29, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants TINA CAVALLERI, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Joshua Haffner, Esq. Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 - and - Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Alistair Segal, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SHAUN SETAREH 420 N. Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Defendants-Appellees HERMES INTERNATIONAL, et al. are represented by: Christopher S. Yates, Esq. Belinda S. Lee, Esq. Ashley M. Bauer, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 HEYWOOD MEDICAL GROUP: Lindsay Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heywood Medical Group, Inc., et al. The case is styled as James Lindsay, Denise Lapierre, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Heywood Medical Group, Inc., Heywood Hospital, Case No. 2585CV01454 (Mass. Super. Ct., Worcester Cty., Oct. 23, 2025). The case type is stated as " Torts." Heywood Healthcare -- https://www.heywood.org/ -- is an independent community healthcare system serving north central Massachusetts and southern New Hampshire.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Randi A. Kassan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 741-5600 Fax: (516) 741-0128 Email: rkassan@milberg.com HILLSHIRE BRANDS: Faces Suit Over Contaminated Corn Dog Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that the Hillshire Brands Company and Tyson Foods face a proposed class action lawsuit after the nationwide September 2025 recall of roughly 58 million pounds of State Fair- and Jimmy Dean-brand corn dog and sausage-on-a-stick products due to the foods' potential contamination with wood chips embedded in the batter. According to the 14-page lawsuit, the State Fair and Jimmy Dean corn dog and sausage-on-a-stick products subject to the recall were manufactured and packaged between March 17, 2025 and September 26, 2025, and bear the establishment numbers EST-582 or P-894. The United States Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) stated in an announcement that the recall was initiated after Hillshire received multiple consumer complaints, including five that involved reports of injuries. Per FSIS, Haltom City, Texas-based Hillshire's investigation determined that "wooden sticks" had entered into the foods' production process prior to battering, causing the contamination. The filing alleges that Hillshire failed to adequately or properly produce, monitor and inspect its products before they were distributed, and thereafter failed to warn consumers of the contamination in a timely manner, instead allowing the products to be sold to and consumed by unsuspecting customers for months. Additionally, the complaint claims that, when the recall finally commenced, it was insufficient and ineffective in mitigating or compensating for the harm done by the potentially contaminated products. Overall, the corn dog recall was purposefully designed to preclude most consumers from obtaining a refund, the lawsuit charges. "As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members suffered economic loss, including but not limited to the purchase price of the recalled products, and have been deprived of the benefit of their bargain," the class action lawsuit contends. "No consumer would purchase the products knowing they contained or were at risk of containing foreign objects that ordinarily should not be consumed." According to the complaint, the corn dog recall was ineffective because it was not targeted specifically to reach those who had purchased the products at issue, as the initiative lacked both direct notice to known purchasers and a widespread ad campaign. Further, while the recall technically allowed for consumers to receive refunds for their contaminated products, the lawsuit notes that this would be incredibly difficult for most buyers, given that the majority of people do not keep receipts for consumable goods and would have either consumed the product, thrown it away or otherwise not kept the packaging. The corn dog recall class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone in the United States who bought corn dog or sausage-on-a-stick products that were included in the September 27, 2025 recall, including those with the establishment numbers EST-582 or P-894 that were manufactured and packaged between March 17 and September 26, 2025. [GN] HUMAN BEES INC: Meza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Human Bees, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Victor Diaz Meza, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. Human Bees, Inc., Richards Packaging, Inc., Does 1-10, Case No. 25CV025296 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Human Bees -- https://humanbees.com/ -- is a recruiting company specialized in placing engineers, IT professionals and manufacturing personnel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus Bradley, Esq. BRADLEY GROMBACHER LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: (805) 270-7100 Fax: (805) 618-2939 Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com INTERNATIONAL GAME: Schoenbrun Sues Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------- MITCHELL SCHOENBRUN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff V. INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY, a Nevada Corporation and BRIGHTSTAR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS CORPORATION d/b/a BRIGHTSTAR LOTTERY GROUP, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02048 (D. Nev., October 22, 2025) seeks to hold Defendants responsible for the harms they caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendants' inadequately protected computer network. As part of their business and in order to gain profits, the Defendants obtained and stored the personal information of Plaintiff and Class members. By taking possession and control of Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information, Defendants assumed a duty to securely store and protect it. On or around November 17, 2024, the Defendants became aware of suspicious activity on their computer system, indicating a data breach. The Defendants breached their 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, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to hold Defendants responsible for their grossly negligent-indeed, reckless-failure to use statutorily required or reasonable industry cybersecurity measures to protect Class members' personal information. International Game Technology is a global technology company that designs, customizes, and manufactures slot machines and other gambling technology. Brightstar Global Solutions Corporation offers operational and technical support in the operation of lotteries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Blvd., Ste. 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (725) 235-9750 E-mail: nring@stranchlaw.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 E-mail: abm@murphylegalfirm.com INTEX RECREATION: Faces Potase Suit Over Unsafe Swimming Pools -------------------------------------------------------------- AUDREY POTASE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTEX RECREATION CORP., and any other related entities, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-10133 (C.D. Cal., October 22, 2025) is a class action seeking damages and equitable relief arising from Defendants' false and misleading representations regarding the safety of their recreational products, including above-ground pools. According to the complaint, the Defendants represented that the products were safe and reliable, despite being aware that the design and manufacturing defects rendered them hazardous, particularly to families with young children. On or around July 21, 2025, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a recall of approximately five million above-ground pools, 48 inches or taller, distributed by Intex and other manufacturers. Consumers who purchased the products learned through the recall notice that the products posed a serious safety hazard requiring significant corrective action. To address the risks associated with the external compression straps, owners must invest substantial time and effort to obtain a repair kit and modify the straps accordingly. In addition, the Plaintiff and all Class Members are required to drain all water from the products before completing the repairs. These corrective measures impose considerable burdens on consumers and result in meaningful expenses, says the suit. Because the products failed to perform as advertised and did not meet the reasonable expectations of consumers, those who purchased them suffered damages, the suit asserts. Intex Recreation Corp. is a wholly owned subsidiary California corporation of its parent company Intex Development Co. LTD., a private corporation headquartered in Wan Chai, Hong Kong.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com IQ DATA: Nelson Labor Class Suit Seeks Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH NELSON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons defined herein, v. I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-12710-FKB-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification. Ms. Nelson moves the Court to certify two classes and one subclass under Rule 23(b)(3), as to Counts I and II, for actual and statutory damages available under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Michigan Occupational Code (MOC), or a divided certification order under Rule 23(b)(1) certifying the Rule 23(b)(3) damages classes and subclass and certifying two classes under Rule 23(b)(2), Count IV seeking a declaratory judgment and Count V seeking to permanently enjoin I.Q from applying Mich. Comp. L. section 438.31 to unilaterally tack on 5% interest to the principal amount of the debt. On Oct. 14, 2025, from 4:00 p.m. to 4:13 p.m., Nelson's counsel, Mr. Warner speaking and Mr. Evanchek on the call, via Microsoft Teams, and I.Q.'s counsel, Ms. Easom, engaged in a premotion meet and confer, as required under Local Rule, in which it was explained the nature of the anticipated motion and the legal basis for class certification being Rule 23, and requested, but did not obtain concurrence in the motion. The Class: "NELSON, and all persons in Michigan, who during a time period from one-year prior to the filing of this civil action until the filing of this civil action, were sent a letter from I.Q. Data International, Inc., and the letter was not returned to Defendant as undeliverable, that stated in the letter, "Your outstanding principal balance will accrue interest at a rate of 005.00 percent per annum", and stated an amount of "Interest Due", an amount that was also included in the "Total Due", where the Defendant's records did not contain a contract that expressly provided for a rate of interest of 5% per annum, or more, to be assessed upon an alleged breach of the original creditor-debtor contract." The Subclass: "NELSON, and all persons in Michigan, who during a time period from one-year prior to the filing of this civil action until the filing of this civil action, were sent a letter from I.Q. Data International, Inc., and the letter was not returned to Defendant as undeliverable, that stated in the letter, "Your outstanding principal balance will accrue interest at a rate of 005.00 percent per annum", and stated an amount of "Interest Due", an amount that was also included in the "Total Due", where Defendant's records did not contain a contract that expressly provided for a rate of interest of 5% per annum, or more, to be assessed upon an alleged breach of the original creditor-debtor contract, and at any time either made a payment above the amount of the "Principal Due" claimed by I.Q., disputed the debt in writing or requested verification of the debt in writing." Count II, the MOC proposed class definition is: "NELSON, and all persons in Michigan, who during a time period from six years prior to the filing of this civil action until the filing of this civil action, were sent a letter from I.Q. Data International, Inc., and the letter was not returned to Defendant as undeliverable, that stated in the letter, 'Your outstanding principal balance will accrue interest at a rate of 005.00 percent per annum', and stated an amount of 'Interest Due', an amount that was also included in the 'Total Due', where Defendant's records did not contain a contract that expressly provided for a rate of interest of 5% per annum, or more, to be assessed upon an alleged breach of the original creditor-debtor contract." The declaratory judgment class in Count IV is defined as: "NELSON, and all persons in Michigan, who during a time period from six years to the filing of this civil action until I.Q. ceases its practice complained of unilaterally adding an amount of 'Interest Due' to the principal amount, were sent a letter from I.Q. Data International, Inc., and the letter was not returned to Defendant as undeliverable, that stated in the letter, 'Your outstanding principal balance will accrue interest at a rate of 005.00 percent per annum', and stated an amount of 'Interest Due', an amount that was also included in the 'Total Due', where Defendant's records did not contain a contract that expressly provided for a rate of interest of 5% per annum, or more, to be assessed upon an alleged breach of the original creditor-debtor contract, and the person did not pay an amount over the principal amount stated in I.Q.'s letters." The permanent injunctive class in Count V is defined as: "NELSON, and all persons in Michigan, in which I.Q. has been retained to collect a debt, or is attempting is attempting to collecting a debt, where I.Q.'s records does not contain a contract that expressly provided for a rate of interest to be assessed upon an alleged breach of the original creditor- debtor contract. IQ is a medium-sized third-party debt collector. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fs55PT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Evanchek, Esq. Curtis C. Warner, Esq. KELLEY AND EVANCHEK, PC 43695 Michigan Ave. Canton, MI 48188 Telephone: (734) 397-4540 E-mail: John@kelawpc.com cwarner@warner.legal IRIS USA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Container Design ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Iris Airtight Pet Food Containers are unreasonably dangerous, given that the "defective design" of the products can cause a pet to become trapped inside the container and suffocate. The 30-page lawsuit relays that each size and color combination of defendant Iris USA's Airtight Pet Food Containers employs the same locking mechanism on the lid. Although Iris advertises that the containers' "secure locking latch" is designed to "keep pets from sneaking a second or even third breakfast," the class action suit alleges that the lid design is defective, as a pet can open the container, climb inside and become trapped. According to the complaint, a pet that becomes trapped inside an Iris container can suffocate within minutes. "The Defect has caused the death of pets, including Plaintiff's kitten," the pet food container lawsuit states. "Other pet deaths have been reported on the internet. As such, Iris Containers are not fit for their intended purpose, unreasonably dangerous to pets, and worthless." The filing says that Iris USA has made no disclosure of the alleged danger its airtight food storage containers pose to pets and has failed to ensure that its products are safe for their advertised use. The suit also contends that consumers nationwide have overpaid for Iris USA pet food containers, by way of buying the products themselves and, for some, paying out-of-pocket expenses related to the death of their pets. Iris Airtight Pet Food Container lock is poorly designed, lawsuit claims Per the filing, the Iris Airtight Pet Food Containers at issue are all sold with the same latch and locking mechanism, which Iris ensures is designed to keep pets out of the container. However, the complaint alleges that pets, especially cats, are able to open the latch and climb inside the container to eat the food stored within. The lids are designed to fall closed immediately after whatever is holding them open, such as a pet owner's hand or the body of a pet climbing into the container, is removed, the suit explains. Because the lid generally falls shut with significant force, the complaint relays, its downward-facing latch will regularly swing closed, catch and automatically lock as soon as the lid is fully shut, trapping inside any pet that climbs into the container. "Because the Iris Containers are designed to be airtight, the pet will suffocate within a few minutes," the suit stresses. Although the container lids are equipped with a small strip of foam that may be intended to prevent the lids from fully latching closed on their own, the lawsuit contends that this measure is largely ineffective, as the foam barrier doesn't always work and can wear out after only a few uses. When this occurs, the container lid can slam completely closed, and the latch will lock automatically, the case says. Complaint claims Iris USA ignored reports of pet deaths, injuries linked to food containers Per the complaint, the lead plaintiff's pet cat died from suffocation after climbing into an Iris Airtight Pet Food Container. The filing alleges that the plaintiff's situation is far from an isolated incident, citing reports from internet forums and Iris's own website regarding pet deaths and injuries caused by a pet becoming trapped in one of the Iris USA pet food containers. The Center for Pet Safety has also publicly advised against the purchase of the Iris containers due to this alleged defect and has called the products dangerous due to the increased risk of pet suffocation, the lawsuit relays. Iris, the suit contends, is fully aware of the risks posed by its products and the harm these products have reportedly caused, yet has not only failed to publicly disclose the defect but has continued to represent its containers as "safer" for pets. "Iris could easily disclose the Defect on its product pages, on the container itself, the packaging, etc., but chooses not to," the case scathes, accusing the manufacturer of actively concealing the flaw. According to the suit, the plaintiff's three-pound kitten, Ace, died by suffocation in July 2025 after it was able to open the locked lid to an Iris pet food storage container and became locked inside once the lid dropped down and automatically locked. Who's covered by the pet food container class action lawsuit? The Iris class action lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals in the United States who have purchased an Iris Airtight Pet Food Container. How do I join the Iris USA pet food container class action lawsuit? Generally, you don't need to do anything to join or sign up for a class action lawsuit when it is first filed. Should the case be resolved with a class action settlement, the settlement class—meaning the people covered by the deal—will be notified by the court via mail and/or email and will receive instructions on any next steps and their legal rights. Keep in mind that some class action lawsuits can take years to settle. [GN] JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Barnes Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Winifred Barnes, and all others similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson Inc., Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. formerly known as: Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc., LTL Management LLC, Case No. 9:25-cv-81208 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Oct. 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-16803 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. Johnson & Johnson (J&J) -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- is an American multinational pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical technologies corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Robert Bell, III, Esq. OSBORNE, ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM, P.A. 433 Plaza Real Suite 271 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 293-2600 Fax: (561) 923-8100 - and - Joseph Anthony Osborne, Esq. 925 South Federal Highway, Suite 175 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 293-2600 Fax: (561) 923-8100 Email: josborne@realtoughlawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer Ann McLoone, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 201 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3200 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 358-5171 Fax: (305) 358-7470 JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Cook Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Karen Cook, and all others similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson Inc., Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. formerly known as: Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc., LTL Management LLC, Case No. 9:25-cv-81209 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Oct. 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-16804 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. Johnson & Johnson (J&J) -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- is an American multinational pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical technologies corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Robert Bell, III, Esq. OSBORNE, ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM, P.A. 433 Plaza Real Suite 271 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 293-2600 Fax: (561) 923-8100 - and - Joseph Anthony Osborne, Esq. 925 South Federal Highway, Suite 175 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 293-2600 Fax: (561) 923-8100 Email: josborne@realtoughlawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer Ann McLoone, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 201 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3200 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 358-5171 Fax: (305) 358-7470 JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Oatman Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Janice Oatman, and all others similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson Inc., Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. formerly known as: Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc., LTL Management LLC, Case No. 9:25-cv-81210 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Oct. 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-16805 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. Johnson & Johnson (J&J) -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- is an American multinational pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical technologies corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Robert Bell, III, Esq. OSBORNE, ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM, P.A. 433 Plaza Real Suite 271 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 293-2600 Fax: (561) 923-8100 - and - Joseph Anthony Osborne, Esq. 925 South Federal Highway, Suite 175 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 293-2600 Fax: (561) 923-8100 Email: josborne@realtoughlawyers.com JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Pearson Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as David Louis Pearson, III, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Laura Pearson, and all others similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson Inc., Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. formerly known as: Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc., LTL Management LLC, Case No. 9:25-cv-81211 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Oct. 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-16806 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. Johnson & Johnson (J&J) -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- is an American multinational pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical technologies corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Anthony Osborne, Esq. 925 South Federal Highway, Suite 175 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 293-2600 Fax: (561) 923-8100 Email: josborne@realtoughlawyers.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Junks Lie Detector Claim in "Cyr" ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Mozart Saint Cyr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant, Civil Action No. 25-11751-BEM (D. Mass.), Judge Brian E. Murphy of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed the Plaintiff's lie detector claim for insufficient allegations and remanded the notice claim to state court for lack of Article III standing. Plaintiff Mozart Saint Cyr alleged that Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. subjected him to an unlawful lie detector test as part of a job application and failed to provide a written notice of his rights regarding such tests, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, Section 19B. Plaintiff brought these claims on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated. JPMorgan moved to dismiss. For the reasons stated, the Court found Plaintiff's allegations insufficient as to the purported lie detector test and found that the Court lacked jurisdiction over his notice claim. Accordingly, the Court granted JPMorgan's motion in part, denied the motion in part, and remanded the notice claim. Plaintiff applied to work at JPMorgan in or around September 2023 and again in or around December 2024. Neither application included the following notice: It is unlawful in Massachusetts to require or administer a lie detector test as a condition of employment or continued employment. An employer who violates this law shall be subject to criminal penalties and civil liability. Also, as part of one or both applications, JPMorgan requested that Plaintiff take a HireVue Interview, which Plaintiff completed. HireVue Interviews are an artificial-intelligence-powered job candidate screening tool, provided by HireVue, Inc. HireVue Interviews work by having job candidates answer a set of interview questions online while being recorded. Applicants may be asked questions related to honesty or integrity. HireVue analyzes interviews using three types of data: language input, speech input, and video input. Language input refers to the content of job candidates' spoken responses, which are transcribed and assessed using artificial intelligence against relevant competencies. Speech input and video input refer to a candidate's tone, expression, and other verbal-visual cues, which are analyzed using third-party, artificial-intelligence technology and converted into an employability score or competency-level scoring report by HireVue. Such scores can be tailored to meet employers' highly individualized needs. However, the HireVue algorithm typically evaluates cognitive ability, emotional intelligence, and personality traits, which may include whether the applicant has an innate sense of integrity and honor. In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged three claims on behalf of himself and on behalf of a putative class or sub-class of job applicants: (1) for declaratory and injunctive relief; (2) for violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, Section 19B(2); and (3) for violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, Section 19B(2)(b). The Lie Detector Statute prohibits employers in Massachusetts from subjecting employees or applicants to lie detector tests as a condition of employment or continued employment. The statute defines a lie detector test as: any test utilizing a polygraph or any other device, mechanism, instrument or written examination, which is operated, or the results of which are used or interpreted by an examiner for the purpose of purporting to assist in or enable the detection of deception, the verification of truthfulness, or the rendering of a diagnostic opinion regarding the honesty of an individual. Plaintiff alleged that JPMorgan subjected him to a lie detector test by requiring him to take a HireVue Interview as part of his job application. However, the Amended Complaint contained insufficient allegations to support the inference that his interview was used for the purpose of truth assessment. Plaintiff's allegations did no more than establish that HireVue Interviews could constitute lie detector tests when used for that purpose. However, this was not enough. Any device, mechanism, instrument or written examination could qualify as a lie detector test if used for that purpose. Plaintiff's allegations demonstrated the multi-utility of a HireVue Interview, making JPMorgan's mere alleged use inadequate to demonstrate its purpose. HireVue generates scores from its interviews based on precise criteria that are often developed in consultation with the employer, tailored to meet employers' highly individualized needs. Thus, a HireVue Interview might plausibly be employed for a wide variety of lawful or unlawful purposes, and nothing in the allegations suggested that lie detection was chief among its use cases. JPMorgan's use of HireVue Interviews was therefore merely consistent with unlawful action and was just as much in line with lawful action. Plaintiff offered no other allegations that would permit the inference that JPMorgan used or uses HireVue Interviews, either generally or as to Plaintiff's application, for the unlawful purpose. Accordingly, the Court found Plaintiff's lie detector allegations wholly conclusory and dismissed the Lie Detector Claim. Likewise, the Court dismissed that part of Plaintiff's claim for declaratory and injunctive relief based on the Lie Detector Claim allegations. Without a viable allegation of having been subjected to a lie detector test, Plaintiff lacked Article III standing for his Notice Claim, and the Court lacked jurisdiction to consider it. Plaintiff's only purported injury was that he was not apprised of his rights under Section 19B. Since this purely informational injury resulted in no downstream consequences, it could not provide a basis for standing. An asserted informational injury that causes no adverse effects cannot satisfy Article III. Because the Court found a lack of Article III standing, a jurisdictional defect, the proper course was remand. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c), the Court remanded the Notice Claim. Likewise, the Court remanded that part of Plaintiff's claim for declaratory and injunctive relief based on the Notice Claim allegations. For the foregoing reasons, JPMorgan's motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. This action was remanded to the Suffolk County Superior Court. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k2ZpYc from PacerMonitor.com JUICY'S VAPOR: Court Denies Class Certification in "Schmitendorf" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Brady Schmitendorf, Plaintiff, v. Juicy's Vapor Lounge, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-02293-TC-GEB (D. Kan.), Judge Toby Crouse of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class in this action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227. Plaintiff Brady Schmitendorf brought this putative class action against Juicy's Vapor Lounge, asserting that Juicy's sent him and others similarly situated unwanted text messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Schmitendorf moved to certify a class. Defendant Juicy's Vapor Lounge, Inc. is a retail vape shop that sells products in Kansas and Oklahoma. As part of its business, Juicy's operates a reward program in which it collects phone numbers from customers who purchase products at its stores. When a customer makes his or her first purchase at Juicy's, a staff member asks the customer if he or she wants to join the reward program. If the customer says yes, Juicy's creates a digital account for the customer in its internal system and stores the customer's phone number in that system. In 2022, Juicy's launched a promotional campaign seeking to reconnect with former customers. It targeted customers who had opted into its rewards program but had not made a purchase in at least ninety days. It sent text messages to those customers with messages like, "It's Tuesday! You know what that means! Buy-One-Get-One-Free Juicy's Premium Juice all day long!" To execute that plan, Juicy's contracted with third-party marketing platforms to send the text messages on its behalf. Juicy's first contracted with the platform EyeRate to send out a text on May 3, 2022. EyeRate used another entity known as Plivo to send that promotional campaign. Juicy's then switched to the platform SlickText, which sent four subsequent text campaigns between May 6 and July 1, 2022. Approximately 3,500 individuals, including Plaintiff Brady Schmitendorf, received at least one text message from Juicy's. Schmitendorf received the text messages on his cell phone. Schmitendorf uses his cell phone for various purposes. He uses it to send and receive personal text messages. He uses it for work too. For example, he communicates with his boss and swaps shifts with his co-workers through an application on his cell phone. Schmitendorf replied to Juicy's with an opt-out request, asking Juicy's to stop sending him promotional messages. He was not the only recipient who did this: Over five hundred individuals who received Juicy's text messages opted out of future text campaigns. Despite these requests, the individuals continued to receive promotional text messages from Juicy's. Schmitendorf then sued Juicy's, alleging that the unwanted text messages violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Schmitendorf asserted two claims but only seeks class certification on one of them. In that claim, Schmitendorf alleged that he and others similarly situated were harmed by Juicy's failure to maintain internal procedures related to recording and complying with customers' do-not-call requests made specifically to Juicy's. The class members intend to seek monetary damages for the alleged statutory violations, which are provided for in the TCPA. In particular, they will seek up to $500 per statutory violation and triple that amount if they prove Juicy's willfully or knowingly violated the TCPA's requirements. Schmitendorf moved to certify a class. He defines the class as: All persons who, on or after four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint in this action through the date of class certification, (1) were sent more than one text message to their residential telephone number by Juicy's, (2) in any twelve month period, (3) for a substantially similar reason as Juicy's texted Plaintiff, (4) including at least one text message after making an opt-out request by text to Juicy's. The Court noted that class actions are an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only. To meet that exception, a party seeking to maintain a class action must affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading standard. A plaintiff requesting class certification must be prepared to prove in fact that each requirement is met. Rule 23(a) delineates four prerequisites for class certification: numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequate representation. Certification is proper only if a district court is satisfied, after a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied. If the prerequisites are met, a movant must then satisfy through evidentiary proof at least one of the defined classes under Rule 23(b). Schmitendorf invokes two of Rule 23(b)'s provisions. He first invokes Rule 23(b)(3), which means he must show that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. He also invokes Rule 23(b)(2), seeking classwide injunctive relief. The Court found that Schmitendorf has not met the requirements to certify a class. He has not shown that the proposed class's common issues predominate over individual ones under Rule 23(b)(3). Nor has he met Rule 23(b)(2)'s requirements to certify a class for injunctive relief. As a result, Schmitendorf's motion for class certification is denied. The Court explained that the predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation. Predominance requires first identifying each aspect of a claim and categorizing whether each aspect is individualized or common based on the inquiry and proofs required, and then weighing the common questions against the individualized questions. The Court found that one issue will require an individualized inquiry for each class member. Specifically, evidence will vary for each class member to prove he or she was a residential telephone subscriber as that term is contemplated by the TCPA. Neither the TCPA nor its implementing regulations define the term residential telephone subscriber. The Court concluded that the text of the TCPA supports the Defendant's interpretation of residential telephone subscriber. When Congress enacted the TCPA in 1991, subscriber meant a person who agrees to receive a periodical or service regularly. Applying that to the TCPA, a telephone subscriber is an individual who makes regular payments to use telephone service on an ongoing basis. So, putting the terms together, residential telephone subscribers are people who make regular payments to use a telephone service at home, that is, people who use a telephone for a personal or private purpose as opposed to a commercial or business use. Accordingly, when considering whether each class member received Juicy's texts at a residential telephone, the proper inquiry is whether he or she used the cell phone for purposes associated with the home. The Court noted that Schmitendorf presents no common evidence to show that each class member was a residential telephone subscriber. Schmitendorf has not affirmatively demonstrated through evidentiary proof that the common, aggregation-enabling, issues in the case are more prevalent or important than the non-common, aggregation-defeating, individual issues. The Court also found that Schmitendorf does not have standing to seek an injunction under Rule 23(b)(2). A plaintiff only has standing to seek injunctive relief if he or she shows a real or immediate threat that he will be wronged again. Schmitendorf has not shown that he will be wronged again because Juicy's has not sent any text messages since 2022, nor is there any evidence in the record demonstrating that it intends to send more text messages. Accordingly, the Court denied Schmitendorf's Motion for Class Certification. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hq1Mif from PacerMonitor.com JUICY'S VAPOR: Schmitendorf Bid for Class Certification Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADY SCHMITENDORF, v. JUICY'S VAPOR LOUNGE, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-02293-TC-GEB (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Toby Crouse entered an order denying Schmitendorf's motion for class certification. Juicy's asserts that the Plaintiff's proposed class should not be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) because Juicy's has not sent—nor does it intend to send—any more promotional text messages since 2022. Juicy's contention is correct: Schmitendorf does not have standing because he has not established, as a named plaintiff must, that he is "suffering a continuing injury or [is] under an imminent threat of being injured in the future." The Plaintiff brought this putative class action against Juicy's Vapor Lounge, asserting that Juicy's sent him and others similarly situated unwanted text messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class defined as: "All persons who, on or after four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint in this action through the date of class certification, (1) were sent more than one text message to their residential telephone number by Juicy's, (2) in any twelve month period, (3) for a substantially similar reason as Juicy's texted Plaintiff, (4) including at least one text message after making an opt out request by text to Juicy's." Juicy's is a retail vape shop that sells products in Kansas and Oklahoma. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Oct. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rXyiBC at no extra charge.[CC] KINDER MORGAN: Continues to Defend ERISA Class Suit in Texas ------------------------------------------------------------ Kinder Morgan Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2025 that the Company continues to defend itself from the ERISA class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. On February 22, 2021, Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan A participants Curtis Pedersen and Beverly Leutloff filed a purported class action lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The named plaintiffs were hired initially by the ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) in the late 1970s. Following a series of corporate acquisitions, plaintiffs became participants in pension plans sponsored by the Coastal Corporation (Coastal), El Paso Corporation (El Paso) and the company by virtue of its acquisition of El Paso in 2012 and its assumption of certain of El Paso's pension plan obligations. The complaint, which was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Civil Action No. 4:21-3590) and amended to include the Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan B, alleges that the series of foregoing transactions resulted in changes to plaintiffs' retirement benefits which are now contested on a class-wide basis in the lawsuit. The complaint asserts six claims that fall within three primary theories of liability. Claims I, II, and III all challenge plan provisions that are alleged to constitute impermissible "backloading" or "cutback" of benefits and seek the same plan modification as to how the plans calculate benefits for former participants in the Coastal plan. Claims IV and V allege that former participants in the ANR plans should be eligible for unreduced benefits at younger ages than the plans currently provide. Claim VI asserts that actuarial assumptions used to calculate reduced early retirement benefits for current or former ANR employees are outdated and therefore unreasonable. On February 8, 2024, the Court certified a class defined as any and all persons who participated in the Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan A or B who are current or former employees of ANR or Coastal, and participated in the El Paso pension plan after El Paso acquired Coastal in 2001, and are members of at least one of three subclasses of individuals who are allegedly due benefits under one or more of the six claims asserted in the complaint. On July 25, 2024, the Court decided the parties' respective cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court granted its motion for summary judgment with respect to Claims I and II based on the Court's determination that the formula used to calculate projected service was neither backloaded nor a violation of ERISA’s anti-cutback rule. The Court granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment with respect to Claim III because the Court found that the summary plan description did not include any clarifying examples or illustrations of accrued benefits using the applicable formula. The Court granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment as to Claim IV based upon the Court's finding that an amendment to the plan in 2007 violated ERISA's anti-cutback protection by terminating the accrual of early retirement benefits in connection with the sale of ANR. The Court granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment as to Claim V because the Court found that the plan administrator used an inconsistent interpretation to calculate benefits for some retirees. The Court dismissed Claim VI without prejudice based upon its determination that the claim is moot given that the Court allowed plaintiffs' motion as to Counts IV and V. The Court's decision on partial summary judgment did not address the extent of potential plan liabilities for past or future benefits or other potential damages or equitable relief. On March 11, 2025, the case was mediated without resolution. Pursuant to the Court's subsequent briefing schedule, the parties filed summary judgment briefs to address potential remedies for Claims III, IV, and V. Plaintiffs seek equitable and other relief including early retirement benefits, monetary damages or other equitable relief estimated to be in excess of $100 million. The Company vigorously oppose the form and scope of relief sought by the plaintiffs and believe it has numerous and substantial defenses to support its vigorous defense at the trial or appellate levels if necessary. To the extent an adverse judgment or settlement results in an increase in plan liabilities, it may elect as the sponsor of the plans to address them in accordance with applicable ERISA provisions, including provisions that allow for contributions to the plans over multiple years. Kinder Morgan, Inc. is an energy infrastructure company based in Texas. KLER'S LISBON: Nowacki Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Ernest Nowacki, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. KLER'S LISBON PROPERTY HOLDING LLC and MANDEEP KLER, Case No. 2:25-cv-01615 (E.D. Wis., Oct. 21, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws ("WWPCL") for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. The Defendants operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by simply failing to compensate said employees with overtime pay of time-and one-half of their regular rate of pay for any and all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL. The Defendants' failure to compensate its hourly paid, non-exempt employees for compensable work performed each workweek, including but not limited to at an overtime rate of pay, was intentional, willful, and violated federal law as set forth in the FLSA and state law as set forth in the WWPCL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants into a position in its Meat Department at Defendants' "Sentry Foods" store located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Kler's Lisbon Property Holding LLC owns, operates, and/or manages a "Sentry Foods" location, located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Phone: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com LIFELONG MEDICAL CARE: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lifelong Medical Care. The case is styled as Frankey Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Lifelong Medical Care, Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 25CV150475 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Oct. 22, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." LifeLong Medical Care -- https://lifelongmedical.org/ -- provides high-quality care with compassion.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karen I. Gold, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-439-5208 Email: kgold@blackstonepc.com LLUME JEWELRY: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Llume Jewelry LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-04072 (D. Minn., Oct. 22, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.llumejewelry.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") 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 its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends 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. The 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 Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers jewelry and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, necklaces, earrings, rings, sets, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com LOCKHEED MARTIN: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lockheed Martin Corp. 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 a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York On July 28, 2025, a putative class action was filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain current and former members of its senior management. The shareholder plaintiff asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired its securities between January 23, 2024 and July 21, 2025. Plaintiff seeks unspecified losses allegedly caused by alleged misstatements about certain programs in the Aeronautics and MFC business segments, certain international helicopter programs in the Sikorsky business, and certain asset impairments and tax matters, which were allegedly revealed to be false when it announced estimated losses relating to those programs and matters. Based on the information available to date, we do not believe that these matters will have a material adverse effect on the results of its operations, financial condition, or liquidity. Lockheed Martin Corporation, a security and aerospace company, engages in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration, and sustainment of technology systems, products, and services worldwide. Lockheed Martin Corporation was founded in 1909 and is based in Bethesda, Maryland. [BN] LOW TECH TOY CLUB: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. LOW TECH TOY CLUB, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-08769 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2025), is brought against the Defendant (or "Dose Daily"), 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, www.thewoobles.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. LOW TECH TOY CLUB, LLC, operates the Woobles online retail store, as well as the Woobles 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 MANHATTAN ASSOCIATES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Manhattan Associates Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2025 that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On February 25, 2025, an alleged Company shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit, Prime v. Manhattan Associates, Inc., et al., No. 1:25-cv-00992-TRJ (N.D. Ga.), in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the Company and certain of its current and former officers (the "Prime Action"). The complaint in the Prime Action alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under that act, based on purported materially false and misleading statements and omissions allegedly made by the defendants between October 22, 2024, and January 28, 2025. The complaint in the Prime Action sought class certification, unspecified monetary damages, and costs and attorneys' fees. On April 15, 2025, another alleged Company shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit, City of Orlando Police Officers’ Pension Fund v. Manhattan Associates, Inc., et al., No. 1:25-cv-02089-TRJ (N.D. Ga.), in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the Company and certain of its current and former officers (the "City of Orlando Action"). The complaint in the City of Orlando Action alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 based on purported materially false and misleading statements and omissions allegedly made by the defendants between July 24, 2024, and February 7, 2025. The factual allegations underlying the claims in the City of Orlando Action were similar to the factual allegations made in the Prime Action. The complaint in the City of Orlando Action sought class certification, unspecified monetary damages, and costs and attorneys’ fees. On May 2, 2025, the Court consolidated the two actions (the "Consolidated Action"), and on May 23, 2025, the Court appointed the plaintiffs in the City of Orlando Action as the lead plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action. On July 22, 2025, the lead plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint, in which the securities law violations alleged are the same as those alleged in the original actions and the proposed class period is the same as in the City of Orlando action. The defendants deny the material allegations in the Consolidated Action, which is still in the early stages and has not yet been certified as a class action, and intend to defend themselves vigorously. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Action on September 22, 2025. The time for lead plaintiffs to respond to the defendants' motion to dismiss has not yet expired. The Company maintains insurance that may cover defendants' liability arising out of this litigation up to the policy limits and subject to meeting certain deductibles and to other terms and conditions. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate timing or outcome of, or reasonably estimate the possible losses or a range of possible losses resulting from, these proceedings. Manhattan Associates is a technology company into prepackaged software and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. MAXIMUS INC: Doctors, Nurses Sue Over Montana Recovery Program -------------------------------------------------------------- Mara Silvers, writing for Montana Free Press, reports that a group of Montana doctors and nurses is suing the national company that runs a rigorous, often mandatory monitoring program for health care providers grappling with addiction. The case is the latest instance of public criticism about how the state-mandated program for more than 60,000 medical licensees operates. The class-action lawsuit was filed on Tuesday, October 27, in the Missoula division of Montana's federal district court on behalf of one doctor and 10 nurses around the state. Those plaintiffs, the filing said, were "subjected to punitive, expensive, and clinically unwarranted monitoring practices" by the Virginia-based contractor Maximus, Inc. The lawsuit said it seeks to represent all "similarly situated" individuals, including all current and past participants of Maximus' program. In their initial complaint, attorneys for the plaintiffs accused Maximus of creating arbitrary sanctions for participants, failing to follow clinical recommendations, shielding documents and records from review, and "keeping participants in the program for indefinite periods without clinically-justified extensions of monitoring." In the same filing, attorneys for the plaintiffs also said that the drug tests and peer support groups required by Maximus are "exorbitantly expensive" for participants, alleging that the contractor is prioritizing profits over clinical best practices for supporting addiction recovery. "Maximus runs the program as punitive, invasive, and punishingly expensive, all to the detriment of its participants," the lawsuit said. A spokesperson for Maximus, Inc., declined to comment on the lawsuit October 29. The company has not filed any legal responses to the initial complaint, according to the federal case records. Maximus was hired by the Department of Labor and Industry to run the Montana Recovery Program beginning in 2023, after a tumultuous transition between vendors. The Montana Professional Assistance Program, the prior nonprofit that ran the professional support and monitoring program for decades, dissolved after losing the state contract in 2021. State law directs licensing boards to establish monitoring and assistance programs as part of their oversight of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, dentists and, more recently, chiropractors and veterinarians. Though not treatment providers, professional assistance programs around the country are often tasked with establishing drug testing, peer support and workplace guidelines for medical providers with a history of addiction or mental health issues. An August audit conducted by nonpartisan legislative staff members found that dozens of Montana participants polled by auditors reported much lower satisfaction with Maximus compared to previous program operators. Several participants contacted auditors directly, the report said, describing Maximus' program as "punitive rather than supportive." Those concerns were also recently echoed by family members of Amy Young, a Billings nurse enrolled in the program who died by suicide in January. Montana Free Press first reported on Young's death in September, sparking new questions among lawmakers and other licensing officials about participants' well-being. The federal lawsuit reiterated many of those complaints. In one section of the initial complaint, attorneys said the program arbitrarily marked participants as noncompliant, leading to a loss of participant trust, sanctions and "prolonged monitoring and indefinite retention in the program." Another part of the lawsuit alleged that plaintiffs regularly had to pay $300 for one drug test, followed by additional tests in the same week, a practice attorneys said was "not clinically indicated and unnecessary." The complaint said the frequency and cost of the testing established by Maximus could be "potentially for financial gain." Gregory Pinski, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, did not make the nurses or doctor named in the lawsuit available for an interview. The complaint comes as officials within Gov. Greg Gianforte's labor department work to review existing state laws about professional assistance programs for medical providers and reconsider the scope of the contract Maximus was hired to execute. An advisory council tasked with carrying out that assessment met for the first time in early October. The group came away with a recommendation to extend Maximus' contract for a year while the labor department solicits public comment about the program, researches other models and searches for a suitable vendor to meet the state's needs. Maximus' current contract is slated to end in December. As of October 29, the advisory group has not released a public notice about another meeting. [GN] MAYAGUEZ, PR: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Padua-Silva v. Municipality of Mayaguez, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01064 (D.P.R., Filed Feb. 3, 2025), the Hon. Judge Maria Antongiorgi-Jordan entered an order referring motion to Mag. Judge Mariana E. Bauza Almonte for Report & Recommendation involving "Motion To Deny Class Certification." The suit alleges violation of the American with Disabilities Act. Mayagüez is located on the west coast of Puerto Rico.[CC] MCBS LLC: Rivera Files Suit in S.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MCBS, LLC. The case is styled as Carlos Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MCBS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00250-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga., Oct. 22, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. MCBS (Medical Computer Business Services) -- https://www.mcbs.com/ -- offers a full-range of services to streamline your medical practice.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Casondra R. Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: cturner@milberg.com METHODIST HOMES DEVELOPMENT: Bassett Files Suit in M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Methodist Homes Development Corporation. The case is styled as Taylor Bassett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Methodist Homes Development Corporation doing business as: Methodist Homes of Alabama & Northwest Florida, Case No. 2:25-cv-01841-JHE (M.D. Fla., Oct. 23, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Fraud. Methodist Homes -- https://www.methodisthomes.org/ -- is a nonprofit property management organization offering Retirement Homes & Health Care Communities in Alabama & Northwest Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry A. Golston, Jr., Esq. Leon Hampton, Jr., Esq. Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC 272 Commerce Street P O Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 Phone: (334) 269-2343 Fax: (334) 954-7555 Email: larry.golston@beasleyallen.com leon.hampton@beasleyallen.com dee.miles@beasleyallen.com MIDTOWN SPIRITS: Norris Sues Over Discriminative Property --------------------------------------------------------- Namel Norris, and other similar situated v. MIDTOWN SPIRITS, INC., a New York corporation, d/b/a WINE ON NINE, and ESKAY REALTY LLC, a New York limited liability company, Case No. 1:25-cv-08758 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 22, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs (including, but not limited to, court costs and expert fees) pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), and the new York State human rights law ("NYSHRL") as a result of the Defendants' have discriminative Property. The Defendants have discriminated, and continue to discriminate, against the Plaintiff, and others who are similarly situated, by denying full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations at Defendants' Property, and by failing to remove architectural barriers, where such removal is readily achievable. The Plaintiff has been unable to, and continues to be unable to, enjoy full and equal safe access to, and the benefits of, all the accommodations and services offered at Defendants' Property, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic and uses a wheelchair for mobility. MIDTOWN SPIRITS, INC., a New York corporation, d/b/a WINE ON NINE, and ESKAY REALTY LLC, a New York limited liability company, are authorized to conduct, and are conducting business within the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: B. Bradley Weitz, Esq. Robert J. Mirel, Esq. THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A. Bank of America Building 18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214 Aventura, Florida 33160 phone: (305) 949-7777 Facsimile: (305) 704-3877 Email: bbw@weitzfirm.com rjm@weitzfirm.com MINDSTATE MANAGEMENT: Rashley Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MindState Management LLC. The case is styled as Kyle Butler Rashley, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. MindState Management LLC doing business as: Elevarus, Case No. 9:25-cv-81305-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 22, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. MindState Management LLC doing business as Elevarus -- https://elevarus.com/ -- is a data-driven and technology-forward growth marketing agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 31 Samana Drive Miami, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com MINNEAPOLIS, MN: Salzer Files Suit in Minn. 4th Judicial Dist. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Minneapolis. The case is styled as Berney Salzer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. City of Minneapolis; Erik Hansen, in his official capacity as the Executive Director of Community Planning & Economic Development for the City of Minneapolis; Steve Poor, in his official capacity as Director, Development Services, for the City of Minneapolis; Ken Staloch, in his official capacity as Chief Building Official for the City of Minneapolis Case No. 27-CV-25-19286 (Minn. 4th Judicial Dist., Hennepin Cty., Oct. 24, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other-Civil." Minneapolis -- https://www.minneapolismn.gov/ -- is a major city in Minnesota that forms "Twin Cities" with the neighboring state capital of St. Paul.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn M. Raiter, Esq. LARSON KING, LLP 2800 Wells Fargo Place 30 East 7th Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Phone: (651)312-6500 Email: sraiter@larsonking.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Morgan Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as William Morgan Jr., and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01428 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-08957-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madison Tate Donaldson, Esq. THE WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 376-6360 Email: mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Skrzypczak Suit Transferred to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Johanna Skrzypczak, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Thomas McEntire, deceased, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01434 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-09076-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madison Tate Donaldson, Esq. THE WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 376-6360 Email: mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Spicer Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Dolores Spicer, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01435 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-09077-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madison Tate Donaldson, Esq. THE WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 376-6360 Email: mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Zurn Suit Transferred to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Frederick Zurn, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Clarence Zurn deceased, and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:25-cv-01436 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 22, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-09079-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Madison Tate Donaldson, Esq. THE WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 376-6360 Email: mdonaldson@wagstafflawfirm.com MORTGAGE BANK: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ------------------------------------------------------ Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. THE MORTGAGE BANK BUILDING, LLC., Case No. 1:25-cv-24879-JAL (S.D. Fla., Oct. 23, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial property and restaurant, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial property, in violation of the ADA. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. THE MORTGAGE BANK BUILDING, LLC, owns and operates a commercial building located in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: jacosta@lawgmp.com. - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Primary Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com MULTNOMAH COUNTY, OR: Class Cert Bid Filing Changed to Feb. 9, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lynch et al v. Multnomah County, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01502 (D. Or., Filed Oct. 12, 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. Multnomah County is part of the Portland metropolitan area.[CC] MYRTLE BEACH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Daniel Due June 5, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as James Daniel, individually and as class representative, v. City of Myrtle Beach, SC, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-01231-SAL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Lydon entered an amended scheduling order as follows: -- Any motions to join other parties and to amend the Pleadings shall be filed by Jan. 5, 2026. -- Discovery shall be completed no later than May 5, 2026. -- The Plaintiff shall file his motion to certify a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on or before June 5, 2026. The Defendant shall file its opposition to the class certification motion on or before July 7, 2026, and the Plaintiff shall file any reply on or before July 21, 2026. -- The parties shall propose deadlines relating to dispositive motions, Daubert motions, stipulations of undisputed facts, mediation, and trial dates within 10 days after the Court rules on class certification. -- Mediation shall be completed in this case within 30 days after class certification is ruled on. Myrtle Beach is a residential and vacation community at the heart of South Carolina's Grand Strand coast. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 16, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KjDzPq at no extra charge.[CC] NAKED WHEY: Caballero Sues Over Reckless Misrepresenting Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sevien Caballero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NAKED WHEY, INC., d/b/a NAKED NUTRITION, Case No. 2:25-cv-03061-CKD (E.D. Cal., Oct. 21, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its knowing, reckless, negligent, and/or intentional practice of misrepresenting that its Naked Mass Vegan Mass Gainer protein powder products ("Products"), in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, violation of the California False Advertising Law, violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Fraud by Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Unjust Enrichment. The Products are sold in California and throughout the United States and do not conform to their packaging. Plaintiff seeks both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of the proposed Class, including requiring full disclosure of the risk or presence of Heavy Metals on the Products' packaging, and restoring monies to the members of the proposed Class. The Defendant's Products contain dangerous toxins: Heavy Metals. Individuals who consume Heavy Metals risk developing serious adverse health effects – a risk which most consumers strongly prefer to avoid. Yet, Defendant presented itself to consumers as a company they could trust, advertising its products as "premium" and "with nothing to hide," as shown below, when the Products contained or had a risk of containing Heavy Metals. Consumers lack the knowledge and opportunity to determine whether Defendant's Products do in fact contain (or have a material risk of containing) Heavy Metals or to ascertain the true nature of the ingredients and quality of the Products. Reasonable consumers therefore must and do rely on Defendant to represent properly and fully what its Products contain. The importance of Defendant's representations is critical with respect to the risk or presence of Heavy Metals and such information would be material to any reasonable consumer's purchasing decisions. The Defendant's packaging is designed to induce reasonable consumers to believe in the high quality and nutritiousness of its Products. But Defendant misrepresents the quality and nutritiousness of the Products in order to deceptively hide the presence (or risk) of Heavy Metals in the Products, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Products, including Naked Mass Vegan Mass Gainer, for household use. Naked Whey, Inc. is a leading manufacturer of protein powders and sports supplements, including the Naked Mass Vegan Mass Gainer products at issue.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa T. Omoto, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1060 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (424) 256-2884 Email: lomoto@faruqilaw.com NEW YORK GRILLED: Ariza Sues Over Disability Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------- Victor Ariza, on behalf of others similarly situated v. NEW YORK GRILLED CHEESE CO. LLC, d/b/a NEW YORK GRILLED CHEESE CO., a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 1:25-cv-24897-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 23, 2025), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website, https://www.newyorkgrilledcheese.com (the "Website"). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the locations of Defendant's physical restaurants. Defendant also sells to the public its food and beverage products through the Website, which acts as a critical point of sale and ordering for Defendant's food and beverage products that are made in and also available for ordering and purchase in, from, and through Defendant's physical restaurants. The Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are blind and visually disabled to communicate with company websites. However, Defendant's Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards and available screen reader software. The Website does not meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ("WCAG") 2.0 Level AA or higher versions of web accessibility, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been blind and visually disabled in that he suffers from optical nerve atrophy, a permanent eye and medical condition that substantially and significantly impairs his vision and limits his ability to see. The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls two restaurants selling food and beverage products, one or more of which Plaintiff intended to patronize in the near future, including the restaurant located in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodenck V. Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. 4800 N. Hiatus Road Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954/362-3800 Facsimile: 954/362-3779 Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com - and - Pelayo Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO 6355 NW. 36th Street, Suite 307 Virginia Gardens, FL 33166 Phone: 305/266-9780 Facsimile: 305/269-8311 Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com NEWBURY ROOFTOP: Ospina Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newbury Rooftop LLC, et al. The case is styled as Anthony Ospina, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Newbury Rooftop LLC, Jeffrey Zalaznick, Mario Carbone Jr., Richard Torrisi, Case No. 2584CV02928 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Oct. 23, 2025). Newbury Rooftop LLC -- https://www.thenewburyboston.com/ -- is a restored and reimagined luxury hotel at the intersection of Newbury and Arlington Streets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lou Saban Esq. 3 Edge Hill St. Ste. #2 Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 Phone: 617-784-2071 Email: lou@sabanlegal.com NEWPORT GROUP: Bid for More Time to File Opposition OK'd in Russ ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Russ, et al., v. Newport Group, Inc. et al. (RE: AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION), Case No. 1:22-cv-01129 (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=Pz3otP at no extra charge.[CC] NEWPORT GROUP: Bid for More Time to File Opposition OK'd in Wade ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wade, et al., v. Newport Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01126 (W.D. Tenn.), 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=YGyMxi at no extra charge.[CC] NJ LENDERS CORP: Castenie Files Suit in D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NJ Lenders Corp. The case is styled as Patrick Castenie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NJ Lenders Corp., Case No. 2:25-cv-16799 (D.N.J., Oct. 22, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. NJ Lenders Corp. -- https://njlenders.com/ -- are privately-owned and licensed as a residential mortgage banker.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Svensson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (202) 975-0468 Email: msvensson@zlk.com OCEAN FOOD AND FUELS: Cheli Sues Over Inaccessible Property ----------------------------------------------------------- Charlene Cheli, an individual, on her own behalf and on the behalf of all other similarly situated v. OCEAN FOOD AND FUELS LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-16868 (D.N.J., Oct. 23, 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, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a mobility impaired person. OCEAN FOOD AND FUELS LLC, owns and/or operates a place of public accommodation, in this instance a gas station and 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 OLAPLEX INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Wrights Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JAZMINE WRIGHT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OLAPLEX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08732 (S.D.N.Y., October 22, 2025) is a civil action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its highly interactive website, www.olaplex.com, in a manner that is fully accessible to and independently usable by blind and visually impaired individuals in violation of Plaintiff's rights under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On multiple occasions in September and October 2025, the Plaintiff attempted to access the website using NVDA screen reader software. Despite multiple attempts, the Plaintiff was unable to independently complete her objectives due to persistent access barriers. These included unlabeled buttons, broken skip links, inaccessible modal dialogs, and ARIA inconsistencies that rendered key product descriptions, pricing, and checkout flows unreadable by screen reader software, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to revise its corporate policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that www.olaplex.com becomes and remains accessible to blind and visually impaired users. OLAPLEX, INC. is a Delaware corporation with its principal business address located in California. The Company operates the website www.olaplex.com, which offers consumers nationwide access to Olaplex-branded haircare products, including bond-building treatments, hydration masks, and styling kits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com OPTIMAL BLUE: Klee Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------- Toni Klee, on behalf of herself and others who are similarly situated v. Optimal Blue, LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-03484-CDA (D. Md., Oct. 23, 2025), is brought for unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") for the Defendant's failure to pay overtime premiums to individuals. the Defendant engages in a scheme which results in so-called "white collar misclassification" whereby it gives its employees a job title that makes their position sound more important than it is (such as "advisor," "manager," "consultant," or "specialist"), and which suggests that they pass one of the white collar "exemptions" to overtime laws. the Defendant's CRMs are uniformly (mis)classified as "exempt" from overtime laws pursuant to the Defendant's policies and pay plan. the Defendant's work culture and job expectations are such that its CRMs are required or expected to work more than 40 hours every week (unless out on leave), meaning that CRMs are deprived of the overtime premiums that they are entitled to receive under federal and state laws. The Plaintiff brings on behalf of herself and others who are similarly situated current or former CRMs seeking unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs arising out of the Defendant's FLSA violations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from January 4, 2022 until January 22, 2025 as a CRM. Optimal Blue provides software services to mortgage lenders and businesses in the secondary mortgage market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Phone: (301) 587-9373 Email: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com rtucci@zagfirm.com - and - Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. Zev Antell, Esq. Samantha R. Galina, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Ste. 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 648-4848 Fax: (804) 237-0413 Email: craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com samantha@butlercurwood.com OTTAWA COUNTY, MI: Grainger Appeals Reconsideration Bid Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- FREDERICK GRAINGER, JR. is taking an appeal from a court judgment in the lawsuit entitled Frederick Grainger, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ottawa County, MI, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00501, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged civil rights violations. On Mar. 2, 2021, Judge Paul L. Maloney entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss. On Mar. 11, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the Mar. 2 Order, which Judge Maloney granted on Sept. 30, 2025. On same day, Judge Maloney entered judgment in favor of the Defendants. The appellate case is entitled Frederick Grainger, Jr. v. Ottawa County, MI, et al., Case No. 25-1933, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on October 17, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant FREDERICK GRAINGER, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Sharon Sue Almonrode, Esq. Christopher D. Kaye, Esq. E. Powell Miller, Esq. MILLER LAW FIRM 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 - and - Philip Lee Ellison, Esq. P.O. Box 107 Hemlock, MI 48626 Telephone: (989) 642-0055 - and - Matthew Edwin Gronda, Esq. GRONDA 4800 Fashion Square Boulevard, Suite 200 Saginaw, MI 48604 Telephone: (989) 233-1639 Defendants-Appellees OTTAWA COUNTY, MI, et al. are represented by: Matthew T. Nelson, Esq. WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD 150 Ottawa Avenue, N.W., Suite 1500 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Telephone: (616) 752-2000 PACIFIC GUARDIAN: Settles Data Breach Class Action Suit for $2MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Pacific Guardian Life Insurance Company is set to pay $2,000,000 to resolve a class action lawsuit over an August 2023 data breach. The Pacific Guardian Life class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on August 22, 2025 and covers anyone who was notified that their personal and/or health information may have been compromised during the data breach, which occurred on or around August 25, 2023. The court-approved website for the Pacific Guardian Life class action settlement can be found at https://PGLIDataBreach.com/. Pacific Guardian Life settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form have several options for reimbursement. Per the settlement website, those who submit with their claim form proof of money lost due to remedying issues related to the data breach may receive a one-time cash payment up to $2,000. Damages from the Pacific Guardian data breach can include costs related to credit freezes, card replacements, obtaining credit reports, card fees, and other unreimbursed costs, the website says. In lieu of reimbursement for documented out-of-pocket expenses, eligible class members may submit a claim to receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment of up to $50. Further, class members residing in California and covered by the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act may elect to receive an additional cash payment of up to $20, the settlement website shares. In addition to the foregoing monetary reimbursement options, eligible class members may also submit a claim form to receive two free years of one-bureau credit monitoring services. Activation codes to access this service can be sent to claimants via e-mail or U.S. mail. Settlement documents detail that Pacific Guardian Life class members can elect to receive any payment options via check or electronic payment. Class members with a valid claim will have 90 days to cash their settlement check after the date of issuance before it expires. To submit a Pacific Guardian Life 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. Consumers who believe they may be a class member but did not receive a class action settlement notice should contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and receive their login ID. Alternatively, a class member can download a PDF copy of the claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the address listed near the top of the form. Pacific Guardian Life settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by December 21, 2025. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Pacific Guardian Life settlement at a hearing on January 13, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Pacific Guardian Life Insurance Company class action lawsuit alleged that the company did not have in place adequate cybersecurity measures to safeguard private patient information. Per the suit, the data accessed during the August 2023 incident included, but was not limited to, patient names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health insurance information, driver's license numbers, financial account information, electronic signatures, and medical information. [GN] PALMETTO OFFICE PARK: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ------------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. PALMETTO OFFICE PARK, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-24843-RAR (S.D. Fla., Oct. 21, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises and the business(es) located within the commercial property. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial property and restaurant, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial property, in violation of the ADA. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. PALMETTO OFFICE PARK, INC. owns, operates and/or oversees the subject Commercial Property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com PARKMOBILE LLC: Hayward Suit Dismissed with Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KALIMA HAYWARD, v. PARKMOBILE, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01820-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Beetlestone entered an order granting motion to dismiss complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Because Hayward's allegation that ParkMobile "relied exclusively on automated email notices" is belied by the public records of the Baker Action, the Court need not accept it as true for the purposes of adjudicating the Motion to Dismiss. The district court in the Baker Action exercised its discretion under Rule 23 to craft reasonable notice procedures and specifically found that the parties complied with those procedures before approving the final settlement. Hayward's inaccurate description of those procedures is not sufficient to support a claim to relief, so her due process claim fails. The Plaintiff Kalima Hayward, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, commenced this civil action by filing a Complaint against the Defendant ParkMobile, LLC, asserting claims under Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"). Currently before the Court are ParkMobile's Motion to Dismiss, Hayward's Response thereto, the Defendant's Reply, and Plaintiff’s Sur-Reply in Opposition (ECF No. 18). Hayward alleges that "ParkMobile failed to notify [her] of this breach," and that she "only learned of the breach in December 2024 when [she] conducted an independent cybersecurity scan." She states that she has suffered numerous injuries to her credit and data security. She asserts that ParkMobile's actions violated the UTPCPL and seeks damages. Hayward alleges that she "was a registered user of ParkMobile's parking payment services," and that she "created a ParkMobile account and provided personally identifiable information ('PII'), including [her] email address, phone number, and license plate number." ParkMobile is a provider of smart parking and mobility solutions in North America. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Oct. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Px6eVK at no extra charge.[CC] PAVILION ASSISTED: Parties Seeks to Approve Class Notice -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATINA WATERS, Individually, and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated current and former employees, v. THE PAVILION ASSISTED LIVING, LLC, d/b/a The Pavilion Senior Living and The Pavilion Senior Living Lebanon, PAVILION-THS, LLC, d/b/a The Pavilion and The Pavilion Senior Living Rehabilitation & Care Center, CARTHAGE ASSISTED LIVING, LLC, d/b/a The Pavilion Senior Living Carthage, and SMYRNA ASSISTED LIVING OPCO, LLC, d/b/a The Pavilion Senior Living Smyrna, Case No. 3:24-cv-01318 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff and the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion to approve proposed notice and consent forms. Pavilion offers independent living, assisted living, and Alzheimer's and dementia care. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9nBsGo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. JACKSON SHIELDS HOLT OWEN & BRYANT Attorneys at Law 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood @jsyc.com jautry@jsyc.com The Defendants are represented by: Mekesha H. Montgomery, Esq. FROST BROWN TODD LLP 150 3rd Avenue South, Suite 1900 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 215-5550 Facsimile: (502) 251-5551 E-mail: mmontgomery@fbtlaw.com PENNEY OPCO: Bedoy Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Eva Bedoy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PENNEY OPCO LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, Case No. CIVRS2507907 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Oct. 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02823. The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), breach of contract, conversion, money had and received, and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Moe Keshavarzi, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations 350 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3460 Phone: 213.620-1780 Facsimile: 213.620-1398 Email: mkeshavarzi@sheppardmullin.com - and - Benjamin D. Brooks, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 501 West Broadway, 18th Floor San Diego, CA 92101-3598 Phone: 619.338.6500 Facsimile: 619.234.3815 Email: bbrooks@sheppardmullin.com - and - J. Randall Boyer, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 Phone: 714.513.5100 Facsimile: 714.513.5130 Email: jboyer@sheppardmullin.com PEOPLEGURU HOLDINGS: Atkinson Files Suit in M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peopleguru Holdings Inc. The case is styled as Danielle Atkinson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Peopleguru Holdings Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-02892 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 23, 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 PEOPLEGURU HOLDINGS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Sandal Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- UHANE SANDAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEOPLEGURU HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-02874 (M.D. Fla., October 21, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information that was impacted in a data breach Defendant disclosed in October 2025. In the ordinary course of its business operations, Defendant obtained and stored the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class members. The Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their private information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to hold Defendant responsible for its grossly negligent -- indeed, reckless -- failure to use statutorily required or reasonable industry cybersecurity measures to protect Class Members' private information. PeopleGuru Holdings, Inc. is a Florida-based human capital management company established in 2017 that provides payroll and HR solutions services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com streisfeld@kolawyers.com PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY: Appeals Reconsideration Order to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled Joseph Pinzon, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Pepperdine University, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-04928, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On Jan. 6, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge Dolly M. Gee granted in part and denied in part on Mar. 7, 2023. On Mar. 13, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of the Mar. 7, 2023 Order, which Judge Gee denied on Mar. 31, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Pinzon, et al. v. Pepperdine University, Case No. 25-6548, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 17, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents JOSEPH PINZON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Carney Richard Shegerian, Esq. SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES 320 North Larchmonth Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90004 - and - Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP 301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 920 Pasadena, CA 91101 - and - Daniel Kurowski, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP 455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410 Chicago, IL 60611 - and - Steve Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP 1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Defendant-Petitioner PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY is represented by: Vito Anthony Costanzo, Esq. Kristina Starr Azlin, Esq. Stacey Hsiang Chun Wang, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP 400 S. Hope Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Qian Shen, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP 787 7th Avenue, 31st Floor New York, NY 10019 - and - David R. Sugden, Esq. CALL & JENSEN, APC 610 Newport Center Drive, Ste. 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Adams Class Suit in Canada ------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2025 that the Company continues to defend itself from the Adams class suit in the Queen’s Bench in Winnipeg, Saskatchewan, Canada. In the class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan, Canada, filed July 10, 2009, the Company, RBH, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits. Philip Morris International, Inc. is a tobacco company with its principal place of business in Stamford, Connecticut. PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Bourassa Class Suit in Canada ---------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2025 that the Company continues to defend itself from the Bourassa class suit in the Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada. In the class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, the Company, RBH, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges that the decedent was addicted to tobacco products and suffered from emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. In December 2014, plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim. Philip Morris International, Inc. is a tobacco company with its principal place of business in Stamford, Connecticut. PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Jacklin Class Suit in Ontario ---------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 24, 2025 that the Company continues to defend itself from the Jacklin class suit in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In the class action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice, filed June 20, 2012, the Company, RBH, and its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits. Philip Morris International, Inc. is a tobacco company with its principal place of business in Stamford, Connecticut. POMONA VALLEY: Agrees to Settle Data Sharing Suit for $600,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center has agreed to pay a $600,000 settlement that offers cash payments to individuals whose information was allegedly shared with Meta without consent after accessing the healthcare provider's website. The Pomona Valley Hospital class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on August 26, 2025 and covers all California residents who logged into the patient portal on the hospital's website between January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2022. The court-approved website for the Pomona Valley Hospital class action settlement can be found at https://PVHMCSettlement.com/. Pomona Valley Hospital settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form can receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment. Per the settlement website, the final amount of each eligible class member's cash payout will depend on the total number of valid claims that are filed and what remains in the settlement fund after deducting settlement administration expenses, attorney costs and fees, and any service awards from the fund. Eligible class members have the option to choose to receive their payout via cash or electronic payment, the settlement website shares. Those who elect to receive their payment as a check will have 60 days to cash it after the date of issuance before the check becomes void. Settlement class members do not need to do anything to receive their share of the class action settlement fund, as they are automatically processed within Pomona Valley Hospital's systems. Consumers who believe they may be a class member but did not receive a settlement notice should contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and await further instructions. Class members can head to this page and enter the unique ID found in their settlement notice to elect how they wish to receive their Pomona Valley Hospital settlement payment. Per settlement documents, the deadline to ask to be excluded from the settlement is December 9, 2025. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Pomona Valley Hospital settlement at a hearing on January 5, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center class action lawsuit claimed that the hospital utilized Facebook Pixel, a piece of code that tracks a user's interactions with a website, within their patient portal to illegally transmit patient communications and private health information to Meta without consent. Per court documents, the user information allegedly shared with Meta included, but was not limited to, names, addresses, contact information, IP addresses and medical histories. [GN] PRESTIGE INTERNATIONAL: Sulaiman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prestige International Security, Inc. The case is styled as Omar A. Sulaiman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ralphs Grocery Company, Case No. 25CHCV03769 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Prestige International Security, Inc. -- https://prestigeinternationalsecurity.com/ -- is a leader in providing a variety of security and personal protection services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephanie Nicole Pottier, Esq. EAGLETON | POTTIER, P.C. 5701 Lonetree Blvd., Ste. 323 Rocklin, CA 95765-3797 Phone: 916-936-1973 Fax: 916-405-4337 Email: pottier@eagletonpottier.com PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Alexander Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ LEE ALEXANDER is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Lee Alexander, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Progressive Advanced Insurance Co., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00704, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The suit, which was removed from the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, is brought against the Defendants for alleged insurance contract violation. On Mar. 25, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which Judge Chad F. Kenney granted on June 24, 2024. The Court finds that Alexander does not have standing to bring a declaratory judgment claim against Progressive in the first instance. All claims against Progressive are dismissed. The appellate case is entitled Lee Alexander v. Progressive Advanced Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 25-2925, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on October 21, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant LEE ALEXANDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Patrick Howard, Esq. Simon B. Paris, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY 1650 Market Street One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575-3895 (215) 575-3868 Defendants-Appellees PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED INSURANCE CO., et al. are represented by: Alexander Fuchs, Esq. Kymberly Kochis, Esq. EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND 1114 Avenue of the Americas The Grace Building, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 389-5082 (212) 389-5068 - and - Beth A. Carter, Esq. BENNETT BRICKLIN & SALTZBURG 1500 Market Street, Center Square, 32nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 665-3311 PROSPER FUNDING: Fails to Properly Secure Personal Info, Shaw Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CODY SHAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROSPER FUNDING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-09103 (N.D. Cal., October 22, 2025) is a class action against Defendant Prosper for its failure to take reasonable measures to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals personally identifying information, including Social Security numbers from cybercriminals. According to the complaint, despite Prosper's duty to safeguard the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members, their private information in Defendant's possession was compromised when an unauthorized party gained access to Defendant's cloud storage platform and exfiltrated sensitive data stored therein on or about September 1, 2025. The data breach occurred when cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive private information that was being kept, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members have been injured by the data breach and are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, intrusion of their, and similar forms of criminal mischief, risk which may last for the rest of their lives. Consequently, the Plaintiff and Class Members have been and will be required to devote time, money, and energy to protect their private information and themselves, to the extent possible, from future crimes, the suit asserts. Prosper Funding LLC is a company that operates an online peer-to-peer lending platform connecting individual and institutional investors with consumer borrowers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick R. Carey, Esq. LEXINGTON LAW GROUP, LLP 503 Divisadero Street San Francisco, CA 94117 Telephone: (415) 913-7800 Facsimile: (415) 759-4112 E-mail: pcarey@lexlawgroup.com - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 23-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com - and - Anja Rusi, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 E-mail: arusi@scott-scott.com PROSPER FUNDING: Rivera Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ---------------------------------------------------------- Ada Rivera, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PROSPER FUNDING LLC and PROSPER MARKETPLACE, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-09133 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 23, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard highly valuable, protected, personally identifiable information and for their failure to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain and/or are utilized to transfer PII. The Plaintiff has been, and continues to be, harmed as a result of Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard their customers' highly valuable, protected, personally identifiable information including, inter alia, their customers' names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and more (collectively, "PII" or "Personal Information" or "Private Information"); and for their failure to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain PII. The Defendants lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated their insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). On September 2, 2025, cyber criminals performed unauthorized queries on Defendants' customer databases. This gave them access to a host of sensitive records, including: full names and home addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, government-issued identification numbers, e-mail addresses and employment details, credit status and income levels, and IP addresses and browser user-agent strings As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligent failure to implement reasonable data security measures, Plaintiff's and Class members' PII are now in the hands of cyber criminals. The Plaintiff and Class members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, extortion, identity theft, and other harms caused by the unauthorized disclosure of their PII—risks which may last for the rest of their lives., says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class members have been damaged by the compromise of their Private Information in the Data Breach. Prosper Funding is a limited liability company that services loans, manages borrower and investor relationships, and offers tools for financial planning and credit monitoring.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Paula R. Brown, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619/338-1100 Fax: 619/338-1101 Email: tblood@bholaw.com pbrown@bholaw.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Tanya Korkhov, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1133 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: 917/438-9189 Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com tkorkhov@nussbaumpc.com QUAKER OATS: Zhen Appeals Class Cert. and Attorney Fees Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- PAT ZHEN is taking an appeal from court orders granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and motion for attorneys' fees, cost, and service awards in the lawsuit entitled Raymond Kessler, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Quaker Oats Company, Defendant, Case No. 7:24-cv-00526-KMK, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint is brought against the Defendant for violations of New York General Business Law's Sections 349 and 350. On July 14, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class and a motion for attorney fees, which Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted on Aug. 7, 2025. The Court awards $2,250,000 in attorneys' fees and costs to Class Counsel. The Court finds the requested amount of attorneys' fees to be fair, reasonable, and appropriate. The Court also finds that Class Counsel have incurred $72,003.41 in litigation costs. All of these costs were reasonably incurred in the ordinary course of prosecuting this case and were necessary given the complex nature and scope of this case. The Court rules that the Class Counsel is entitled to reimbursement for these costs. The appellate case is entitled Kessler v. The Quaker Oats Company, Case No. 25-2614, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 21, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees RAYMOND KESSLER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Defendant-Appellee THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY is represented by: Benjamin Fleming, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 390 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017 Objector-Appellant PAT ZHEN appears pro se. RALPHS GROCERY: Partida Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ralphs Grocery Company. The case is styled as Erik Partida, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ralphs Grocery Company, Case No. 25STCV31146 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Ralphs -- https://www.ralphs.com/ -- is an American supermarket chain in Southern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robin G. Workman, Esq. WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC 2325 3rd St Ste 329 San Francisco, CA 94107-4301 Phone: 415-782-3660 Fax: 415-788-1028 Email: robin@workmanlawpc.com RECKER CONSULTING: Lott Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 6th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ KIARA LOTT is taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Kiara Lott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Recker Consulting, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00489, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and common law. On Sept. 9, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge Douglas R. Cole granted in part and denied in part on Sept. 4, 2025. The Court dismissed Counts I and II to the extent the Plaintiff's claims rely on Patient Care Associates' (PCAs) preliminary and postliminary activities, such as entering credentials, opening the timekeeping system, or other such activities catalogued above. But the Plaintiff may proceed on those claims to the extent she was uncompensated for principal activities such as engaging the Defendants' phone system, workflow system, directory, a client's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) system, or similar integral-and-indispensable program or application. The Plaintiff may also proceed on Counts I and II as to her rounding theory of liability. Lastly, the Court dismissed Counts III and IV in their entirety. The appellate case is entitled In re: Kiara Lott, Case No. 25-0310, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on October 17, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner KIARA LOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, II, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 - and - Matthew L. Turner, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Defendants-Respondents RECKER CONSULTING, LLC, et al. are represented by: Anthony Patrick McNamara, Esq. David A. Nenni, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS 201 E. Fifth Street, 26th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 898-0050 RECKER CONSULTING: Lott Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 6th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ KIARA LOTT is taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Kiara Lott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Recker Consulting, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00489, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and common law. On Sept. 9, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge Douglas R. Cole granted in part and denied in part on Sept. 4, 2025. The Court dismissed Counts I and II to the extent the Plaintiff's claims rely on Patient Care Associates' (PCAs) preliminary and postliminary activities, such as entering credentials, opening the timekeeping system, or other such activities catalogued above. But the Plaintiffs may proceed on those claims to the extent they were uncompensated for principal activities such as engaging the Defendants' phone system, workflow system, directory, a client's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) system, or similar integral-and-indispensable program or application. The Plaintiffs may also proceed on Counts I and II as to their rounding theory of liability. Lastly, the Court dismissed Counts III and IV in their entirety. The appellate case is entitled Kiara Lott v. Recker Consulting, LLC, et al., Case No. 25-3836, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on October 21, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant KIARA LOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Matthew L. Turner, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Defendants-Appellees RECKER CONSULTING, LLC, et al. are represented by: Anthony Patrick McNamara, Esq. David A. Nenni, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS 201 E. Fifth Street, 26th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 898-0050 SINCLAIR INC: Sanchez Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Monica Sanchez and Daniel Kearney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SINCLAIR, INC., a Maryland corporation d/b/a WWW.TENNISCHANNEL.COM, Case No. 25-2-26003-8 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Oct. 23, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10207. The Complaint asserts that Plaintiff and the putative class are entitled to "statutory penalties" under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Aravind Swaminathan, Esq. Rebecca Harlow, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP The Orrick Building 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2669 Phone: +1 415 773 5700 Facsimile: +1 415 773 5759 Email: aswaminathan@orrick.com rharlow@orrick.com SIRIUS XM: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss a Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a judge denied Sirius XM's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit. Why: The ruling stated that the way Sirius XM informed customers of royalty fee was outside the confines of reasonable expectations. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Oregon federal court. A federal judge has denied Sirius XM's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed against it by a group of plaintiffs alleging the company engaged in a deceptive pricing scheme. Plaintiffs Kara Kirkpatrick, Gillian Maxfield, Anna DeMarco and Cody Michael claim Sirius XM falsely advertised its music plans at lower prices than it actually charges. The plaintiffs argued Sirius XM violated Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act and breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, according to the original lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon ruled the plaintiffs' claims were timely and that they had adequately alleged that Sirius XM's conduct was outside the confines of their reasonable expectations, a Law360 report stated. Sirius XM had argued the plaintiffs' claims were untimely because they had received sufficient knowledge to "excite attention" about the royalty fee included in their music plan subscriptions since it would have appeared on their credit card statements and was reflected in their respective Sirius XM online accounts. Sirius XM allegedly failed to inform plaintiffs of royalty fee Judge Simon determined that a jury could find that a plaintiff "might reasonably miss such a small additional charge in the cacophony of everyday life," according to the Sirius XM class action lawsuit. The plaintiffs argue they were not informed of the added cost of the royalty fee until the final webpage of the online purchase process, or, in the case of the plaintiffs who enrolled in a Sirius XM subscription over the phone, not at all. The plaintiffs claim Sirius XM's customer service told subscribers asking about the royalty fee that it was "government mandated" or a "government pass-through fee," according to the Sirius XM class action lawsuit. The judge ruled that, at this stage of the litigation, the plaintiffs had adequately alleged that the way Sirius XM informed them of the royalty fee was outside the confines of their reasonable expectations. The plaintiffs are represented by Che Corrington and Daniel M. Hattis of Hattis, Lukacs & Corrington and Stephen P. DeNittis of DeNittis Osefchen Prince P.C. The Sirius XM class action lawsuit is Kirkpatrick, et al. v. Sirius XM Radio LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-955, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. [GN] SUNSET CENTER: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ------------------------------------------------------ Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. SUNSET CENTER CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-24889-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 23, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises and the business(es) located within the commercial property. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial property and restaurant, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial property, in violation of the ADA. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. SUNSET CENTER CORPORATION owns and operates a place of public accommodation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: aquezada@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: jacosta@lawgmp.com. - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Primary Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com THORNTONS LLC: Appeals Remand Order in Phillips Suit to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- THORNTONS, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to remand in the lawsuit entitled Chondra Phillips, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Thorntons, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-05215-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit, which was removed from the Alameda Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the California Labor Code. On July 18, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted on Oct. 10, 2025. The Defendant's motion to compel is dismissed as moot. The appellate case is entitled Phillips, et al. v. Thorntons, LLC, Case No. 25-6623, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 20, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents CHONDRA PHILLIPS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Thiago Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 660 S. Figueroa Street, Sky Lobby Los Angeles, CA 90017 Defendant-Petitioner THORNTONS, LLC is represented by: Steven B. Katz, Esq. Kenneth Sulzer, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 2029 Century Park, E Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 - and - Barbara Iole Antonucci, Esq. Stacy R. Lall, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 350 San Francisco, CA 94111 TRUE YOGA: Consumers Group Files Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- Focus Taiwan reports that The Consumer Protection Association in Taiwan (CPAT) said Wednesday, October 29, that it is opening applications for victims to join a class-action lawsuit against True Yoga Fitness, which abruptly ceased operations in Taiwan on Oct. 1. Those who have not received full refunds can apply from Wednesday through Dec. 15 by filling out forms available on the CPAT website and mail them back with receipts or other proof of purchase to the CPAT office in Kaohsiung, the association said at a press conference. Lawyer Liu Shu-ching urged affected customers to join the lawsuit, calling it "the last line of defense" after the chain went out of business, leaving many unable to reclaim losses from paid subscription fees or unused classes. Singapore-based fitness chain True Yoga Fitness suspended operations at six out of 13 outlets in Taipei, New Taipei, and Taoyuan on Sept. 23 without prior notice. The company later announced on Sept. 30 that it would cease all operations from Oct. 1 and begin bankruptcy and liquidation proceedings, citing heavy losses from the COVID-19 pandemic and a weak economy. If more than 20 people suffer losses in an alleged consumer rights violation case, consumer protection groups can pursue a class-action lawsuit on behalf of members, according to the Consumer Protection Act. The victims do not have to pay court fees nor appear in court, the CPAT said. For more information, victims can call the CPAT at (07)9700726, contact the Executive Yuan's Consumer Protection Committee, or reach out to consumer services centers in their cities, the CPAT said. [GN] U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL: Face Class Action Suit Over "Drip Pricing" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that U-Haul International unlawfully waits until the end of its checkout process to add hidden fees to a customer's transaction, a practice known as "drip pricing." The 18-page lawsuit claims that U-Haul employs in California a predatory "drip-pricing" scheme in advertising its goods and services at artificially low prices that do not include the company's "environmental fee," which the case says is tacked on to a consumer's sale price at the very end of the transaction. The case accuses U-Haul of ignoring California's Honest Pricing Law, a 2024 amendment to the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, by "continuing to dupe consumers" into shelling out for illegal hidden fees. By the time the fee has been revealed, the filing says, a consumer has already decided to rent from U-Haul. "U-Haul's drip pricing practice frustrates comparison shopping, impedes competition, and causes consumers to pay more for truck and trailer rentals than they otherwise would have," the suit contends. The plaintiff in the case is a California resident who, on two separate occasions, rented trucks from U-Haul for an advertised price of $29.95, but was unknowingly charged an additional "environmental fee" that was only disclosed at the end of the transaction. Though the fee was only an additional $1 each time, the suit argues that the money was "wrongfully obtained" by U-Haul and that "law does require that the listed price include the full amount (excluding Government taxes) that a customer must pay for that good or service." "U-Haul's violation of the Honest Pricing Law is particularly egregious because (1) labeling the fee as an 'environmental fee' would lead a reasonable consumer to believe that the fee is a lawful, legitimate charge and (2) the fee is only displayed after a consumer has clicked through approximately 10 pages and reached the end of the checkout process," the class action lawsuit says. The complaint argues that since the Honest Pricing Law was passed in October 2023 but did not go into effect until July 2024, U-Haul should have been aware of its alleged wrongdoing, given that the company had nearly nine months to modify its business practices. The U-Haul drip pricing lawsuit looks to cover all individuals who, while in California and within the applicable statute of limitations period, bought goods or services from U-Haul and were charged any fees, excluding mandatory taxes, that were not included in the advertised price. [GN] WESTERN UNION: Continues to Defend Money Transfer Fees Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Western Union 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 27, 2025 that the company's subsidiary Western Union Financial Services Argentina S.R.L. continues to defend the money transfer fees class suit in the Argentina's National Commercial Court No. 19. In October 2015, Consumidores Financieros Asociación Civil para su Defensa, an Argentinian consumer association, filed a purported class action lawsuit in Argentina's National Commercial Court No. 19 against the Company's subsidiary Western Union Financial Services Argentina S.R.L. ("WUFSA"). The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that WUFSA's fees for money transfers sent from Argentina are excessive and that WUFSA does not provide consumers with adequate information about foreign exchange rates. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, an order requiring WUFSA to reimburse consumers for the fees they paid and the foreign exchange revenue associated with money transfers sent from Argentina, plus punitive damages. The complaint does not specify a monetary value of the claim or a time period. In November 2015, the Court declared the complaint formally admissible as a class action. The notice of claim was served on WUFSA in May 2016, and in June 2016 WUFSA filed a response to the claim and moved to dismiss it on statute of limitations and standing grounds. In April 2017, the Court deferred ruling on the motion until later in the proceedings. The process for notifying potential class members has been completed, and the case is in the evidentiary stage. Due to the stage of this matter, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this matter. WUFSA intends to defend itself vigorously. The Western Union Company is an American worldwide financial services and communications company, headquartered in Denver, Colorado. Until it discontinued the service in 2006, Western Union was the leading American company in the business of transmitting telegrams.[CC] WINDGATE RANCH: "Engle" Remains in Nebraska District Court ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Teri L. Engle, individually, and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated; and Brian J. Engle, individually, and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Windgate Ranch Homeowners Association, Inc., a Nebraska nonprofit corporation; and Vandelay Industries, LLC, a Nebraska limited liability company, doing business as The HOA Company, Defendants, Case No. 8:25CV479 (D. Neb.), Judge Brian C. Buescher of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska denied the Plaintiffs' Combined Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint and to Remand to State Court. This is a putative class action. One plaintiff originally filed this putative class action on June 18, 2025, in the District Court for Douglas County, Nebraska. The plaintiff amended the Complaint on July 8, 2025, while still in state court to add another named plaintiff. Defendants subsequently removed this case to federal court. The Plaintiffs challenge the creation of a homeowners association and the collection of assessments on behalf of such homeowners association. Teri Engle, as the sole individual plaintiff, filed this lawsuit as a putative class action on June 18, 2025, in the District Court for Douglas County, Nebraska, asserting fifteen causes of action, including one federal claim pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. On July 8, 2025, Teri Engle filed a First Amended Complaint that among other things added Brian Engle as an additional plaintiff and asserted twenty causes of action, including one pursuant to the FDCPA. On July 29, 2025, defendant Windgate Ranch Homeowners Association, Inc. filed a Notice of Removal of this case to federal court. On August 28, 2025, before either Defendant had filed any response to the First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs filed the Combined Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint and to Remand to State Court. The Plaintiffs' Combined Motion states that it removes the FDCPA claim, expands one negligence claim into four claims, and reduces the number of state-law claims from nineteen to eleven. The Plaintiffs attached to their Combined Motion their proposed Second Amended Complaint. On September 11, 2025, Windgate filed a Resistance to Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand and a supporting Brief. Although Windgate requests that the Court deny the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, Windgate does not seek denial of the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend. Also on September 11, 2025, Defendant Vandelay Industries, LLC filed a Resistance to Plaintiffs' Combined Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint and to Remand to State Court and a supporting brief. Unlike Windgate, Vandelay expressly requests denial of the Plaintiffs' Combined Motion in its entirety, or alternatively, denial of the Motion to Remand. The Plaintiffs filed a Reply Brief to Resistances of Both Defendants on September 18, 2025. The Plaintiffs' Combined Motion first requests a ruling on the Motion for Leave to Amend. Thereafter, it requests a ruling on the Motion to Remand pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. The Plaintiffs' brief makes it even clearer that the Motion to Remand is dependent upon the Court granting the Motion for Leave to Amend by explaining that once the Court allows the Second Amended Complaint which eliminates the only federal claim under the FDCPA, this action will then meet all requirements for mandatory remand under CAFA, or, if not under CAFA's two Mandatory Exceptions. The Court concludes that if it denies the Motion for Leave to Amend, then the Motion to Remand would be moot. The Plaintiffs assert that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, leave to amend should be freely given when justice so requires. They reiterate the summary of the amendments in the proposed Second Amended Complaint, adding that the reduction in the number of state law claims was because they were possibly redundant with other existing state based claims. The Plaintiffs argue that the Second Amended Complaint is not offered to cause undue delay or because of bad faith or dilatory motive. The Plaintiffs contend further that the amendment is not barred by any repeated failure to cure deficiencies with prior amendments, futility of the proposed amendment, or prejudice to Defendants. Vandelay argues that the Plaintiffs should not be given leave to amend. Vandelay asserts that failing to follow the requirements of local rules is an adequate ground to deny a motion to amend. Vandelay argues that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend violates the requirement under NECivR 15.1 to identify specifically the proposed amendments, including failure to identify factual changes, changes to parties involved, changes to the amount in controversy, and failure to identify new or deleted causes of action. Vandelay argues further that the Plaintiffs have failed to comply with certain technical requirements under the local rule, including submission of a signed copy of the proposed pleading when an unsigned copy is required, failure to state whether the motion is resisted, and improperly incorporating prior pleadings by reference. The Court examined controlling Eighth Circuit precedent. In Clobes v. 3M Co., 106 F.4th 803 (8th Cir. 2024), the Eighth Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Clobes leave to amend on the basis that he failed to comply with the District of Minnesota's Local Rule 15.1(b). The Eighth Circuit stated: We have long recognized that a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend where a plaintiff has not followed applicable procedural rules. Here, Clobes sought leave to amend his complaint without submitting a proposed amended complaint to the district court. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend must be denied for failure to comply with the applicable local rule, NECivR 15.1(a). The local rule provides that a party who moves for leave to amend a pleading must file as an attachment to the motion an unsigned copy of the proposed amended pleading that clearly identifies the proposed amendments. The proposed amended pleading must be a complete pleading that, if allowed to be filed, supersedes the original pleading in all respects; no part of the prior pleading may be incorporated into the proposed amended pleading by reference. The motion for leave to amend must (1) specifically state the proposed amendments and (2) state whether the motion is unopposed or opposed, after conferring with opposing parties. The Plaintiffs' Motion and proposed Second Amended Complaint attached to it fail these requirements. The Court found that the Plaintiffs' Combined Motion does not specifically state the proposed amendments as required by NECivR 15.1(a). The reader has no indication of what the four narrower negligence causes of action might be. For example, there is no identification of the claim number of the negligence cause of action omitted and the claim numbers of the negligence causes of action that replace it. Furthermore, there is no description of the new negligence causes of action and no indication of how the new negligence causes of action are narrower than the single negligence cause of action in the prior pleading. The same is true of the reduction of the number of state-based causes of action from 19 to 11. The Combined Motion also makes no attempt at all to state whether the motion is unopposed or opposed nor does it indicate whether the Plaintiffs made any attempt to confer with opposing parties before filing for leave to amend. The proposed Second Amended Complaint attached to the Plaintiffs' Motion is also deficient. The local rule requires an unsigned copy of the proposed amended pleading that clearly identifies the proposed amendments. However, the proposed Second Amended Complaint fails to satisfy the most critical requirement set out in the local rule. That requirement is that the proposed amended pleading must clearly identify the proposed amendments. Vandelay points out that it has been added as a defendant on the slander-of-title claim, which previously was Against Defendant HOA, but that proposed amendment is not clearly identified or even hinted at in the Plaintiffs' Motion or proposed Second Amended Complaint. Adding a defendant to a cause of action not previously brought against that defendant is by any reasonable assessment a consequential change. Although the Court has denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend for failure to comply with the requirements of NECivR 15.1(a), the Court will exercise its discretion to make the denial expressly without prejudice to a further attempt to amend the Complaint in full compliance with applicable law and rules. The Court has not found a fatal flaw in this case, such as futility of any further amendment, that would warrant barring any further attempt to amend. Thus, in this case, the interests of justice favor denial of leave to amend without prejudice to refiling of a motion for leave to amend in full compliance with applicable rules. However, even though the denial of the present Motion for Leave to Amend is without prejudice, any subsequent motion to amend may still be subject to challenge and denial on both procedural grounds and on the merits. The Court reiterates that if it denies the Motion for Leave to Amend, then the Motion to Remand would be moot. The Court adds that even if it had granted the Motion for Leave to Amend, the arguments and record so far submitted by the parties would not have allowed the Court to determine whether remand would be appropriate. Under these circumstances, it appears to the Court that the parties would be better served by first resolving whether leave to amend should be granted to eliminate the only federal claim, the FDCPA claim. Once that issue is resolved, the issue of remand could be properly presented and argued on the basis of evidence obtained during discovery. Accordingly, the part of the Motion seeking leave to amend is denied for failure to comply with NECivR 15.1, but such denial is without prejudice to a renewed motion for leave to amend, which may be subject to challenge and denial on procedural grounds and on the merits. The part of the Motion seeking remand to state court is denied as moot. A copy of the court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0Iywch from PacerMonitor.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***