251107.mbx

251107.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, November 7, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 223 Headlines APEX WELL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barber Alleges APPLE INC: Uses Copyright Works Without Consent, Alexander Says ARMS SECURITY: Faces Carter Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ARTESANO CAFE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alicea Alleges ATYR PHARMA: Faces King Suit Over 83.2% Drop of Common Stock Price BIG MIKES: Hires BransonLaw PLLC as Bankruptcy Counsel BLUE RIDGE: Mathes Balks at Mass Layoff Without Proper Notice BLUE RIDGE: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice CADENCE PERFORMANCE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Murphy Says CAESARS VIRGINIA: Court Dismisses Overtime Pay Claim in "Fowler" CAREATHOME MEDICAL: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice CHINA SUMMIT: Loses Bid to Junk 2nd Amended Complaint in "Yam" CITY OF NEWARK: Loses Bid to Junk Police Officers' OT Suit COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Barton Sues Over Mislabeled Kids Toothpaste CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Amende Alleges CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Griffin Alleges DISCORD INC: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Marquez Says DOMINICK DALE: "Snyder" Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction DULCICH INC: Poitras Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info EXPRESS MINI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baeza Suit Alleges HOT-PEPPERS INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Cantwell Says HUEL INC: Protein Powder Contains Toxic Chemicals, Albright Says JOEY'S FINE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Acome Alleges KAOTIC AUTO: Perez Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Mechanics KETTLE & FIRE: Keirsted Files Suit Over Deceptive Bone Broth Labels LANGDON & COMPANY: Marino Class Suit Removed to E.D.N.C. LENCHO OILFIELD: Court Denies Bid to Enforce "Chavez" Deal MARYLAND: Removes Battle Suit to District of Maryland MCKINLEY PAPER: Ehmann Employment Suit Removed to E.D. Wis. MERITAGE HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Alleges MONSANTO COMPANY: O'Neal Sues Over Roundup's Danger to Human Health MULBERRY PARK: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind NEWELL BRANDS: Faces Martin Suit Over Defective Countertop Ovens NEWELL BRANDS: Kuntzsch Sues Over Oster Ovens' Design Defect NJ LENDERS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Albanese Alleges PACIFIC SEAFOOD: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Fernandez Says PARADISE POOL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ahmed Suit Alleges PATSY'S ITALIAN: Court OKs Conditional Certification in "Hoti" PAYACTIV INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bernard Alleges PRESS 195 RESTAURANT: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says PRIMAL QUEEN: Blank Sues Over Illegal Automatic Renewal RICHEMONT NORTH: Abdullah Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ROMAN AND WILLIAMS: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website RRH ENERGY: Court Dismisses "Savada" Under First-to-File Rule SALESLOFT INC: Faces Newbery Suit Over Compromised Clients' Info SBC WASTE: Underpays Company Drivers, Granados Says SOZAI BROOKLYN: Jones Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website STATE FARM: Threatens Driver's License Suspension, Mayshack Says STYLECRAFT LLC: Mancilla Sues Over Clippers and Trimmers' False Ads SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: Elwood Sues Over Defective Countertop Ovens TEKNIPLEX INC: Court Consolidates Data Breach Class Actions UNITED SURGICAL: Venue in "Janosky" Transferred to N.D. Texas X CREAMERY: Hernandez Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Faces 3,600 Exposure Claims as of Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carrier Global Reports $218MM Total Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Faces 758 New PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Electric Has $2.1BB Reserves at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Genuine Parts Has 3,000 Lawsuits as of Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $1.5BB Liabilities as of March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Tech Has 840 Open Cases as of Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trimas Corp. Has 565 Pending Cases as of Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Reports $726MM Liability at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westinghouse Air Brake Defends Exposure Claims ********* APEX WELL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barber Alleges ---------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN BARBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APEX WELL SERVICING USA INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00247-DLH-CRH (D.N.D., Oct. 24, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Barber was employed by the Defendant as a rig supervisor. Apex Well Servicing USA Inc. offers service rigs, rod rigs, pressure pumping, frac water heating, and rental equipment. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Armando A. Ortiz, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza #3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 APPLE INC: Uses Copyright Works Without Consent, Alexander Says --------------------------------------------------------------- TASHA ALEXANDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC.; CRAIG FEDERIGHI; and JOHN GIANNANDREA, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-09090 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 22, 2025) alleges that Apple did not seek permission or pay for the copyrighted works it uses, rather Apple willfully exploits the works without authorization to build and train its Apple Intelligence product. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, Apple undermines authors' livelihoods by embedding Apple Intelligence in its products, enabling Apple device users to generate, freely or cheaply, texts writers would otherwise be paid to produce. These models, which erode the market for the Plaintiff's and the Class's works, were built without compensating the authors on whom Apple relied, without authorization, for high quality training data. By embedding the Plaintiff's works into Apple Intelligence, Apple has irreversibly entangled the Plaintiff's works with its commercial products, stripping the Plaintiff of her exclusive rights under the Copyright Act to control the copying and distribution of the Plaintiff Works. This unauthorized copying and distribution inflicts immediate and irreparable harm on Plaintiff—harm that Apple compounds daily through its expanding deployment of Apple Intelligence features embedded in Apple's products. Apple Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal computers, tablets, wearables and accessories, and sells a variety of related accessories. The Company also offers payment, digital content, cloud and advertising services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Brian Danitz, Esq. Gia Jung, Esq. Caroline Yuen, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcom Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 Email: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com bdanitz@cpmlegal.com gjung@cpmlegal.com cyuen@cpmlegal.com - and - Karin B. Swope, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Andrew Fuller, Esq Jacob M. Alhadeff, Esq COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 1809 7th Ave., Ste. 1610 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 802-1272 Facsimile: (206) 299-4184 Email: kswope@cpmlegal.com tloeser@cpmlegal.com afuller@cpmlegal.com jalhadeff@cpmlegal.com - and - Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. Anne K. Davis, Esq. Joshua D. Samra, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 1330 Broadway, Suite 630 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 445-4003 Email: lweaver@bfalaw.com adavis@bfalaw.com jsamra@bfalaw.com ARMS SECURITY: Faces Carter Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- GABRAY CARTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARMS SECURITY CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12933 (N.D. Ill., October 23, 2025) is a collective and class action for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff performed non-exempt duties as a security employee for the Defendant. He regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in individual workweeks during the relevant period. Despite working those overtime hours, Defendant failed to pay one and one half times Plaintiff's regular rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Arms Security Corporation operates a security services business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Dolley, Esq. Zac Halden, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 166 W. Washington St., Ste. 400 Chicago, IL 60602 E-mail: kdolley@hkm.com zhalden@hkm.com ARTESANO CAFE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alicea Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- GIANELA ALICEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARTESANO CAFE CORP. d/b/a ARTESANO PERUVIAN CUSINE; ROMAN CERVANTES; DAVID CABRERA; RODRIGO FERNANDINI; and ATIP ALI, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08888 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Alicea was employed by the Defendants as a server. Artesano Cafe Corp. d/b/a Artesano Peruvian Cusine is a New York entity operating in the restaurant industry, located at New York, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 250 Broadway, Suite 600 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 323-6980 Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com ATYR PHARMA: Faces King Suit Over 83.2% Drop of Common Stock Price ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN KING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATYR PHARMA INC. and SANJAY S. SHUKLA, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-02826-BJC-VET (S.D. Cal., October 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding aTyr's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade aTyr common stock at artificially inflated prices between November 7, 2024, and September 12, 2025. Specifically, the Defendants concealed material adverse facts concerning the efficacy of Efzofitimod, particularly, the drug's capability to allow a patient to completely taper their steroid usage. When the truth emerged, the price of aTyr's common stock declined from a market close price of $6.03 per share on September 12, 2025, to $1.02 per share on September 15, 2025, an 83.2 percent price decline over a single trading day. The Plaintiff and similarly situated investors have sustained significant damages as a result of the Defendants' fraudulent statements. aTyr Pharma Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, headquartered in San Diego, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 1925 Century Park E., #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - David P. Abel, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: dabel@shamisgentile.com BIG MIKES: Hires BransonLaw PLLC as Bankruptcy Counsel ------------------------------------------------------ Big Mikes Tree Service LLC seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida to hire BransonLaw, PLLC as counsel. The firm will provide these services: a. prosecute and defend any causes of action on behalf of the Debtor, and prepare, on behalf of the Debtor, all necessary applications, motions, reports and other legal papers; b. assist in the formulation of a plan of reorganization; and c. provide all other services of a legal nature. The firm will be paid at the rates of $150 to $655 per hour. Prior to the commencement of the case the Debtor paid an advance fee of $1,770 for post-petition services and expenses in connection with this case and the filing fee of $1,738. The firm will also be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred. Jeffrey Ainsworth, Esq., an attorney at BransonLaw, disclosed in a court filing that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code. The firm can be reached through: Jeffrey Ainsworth, Esq. BransonLaw, PLLC 1501 E. Concord Street Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (407) 894-6834 Email: jeff@bransonlaw.com About Big Mikes Tree Service LLC Big Mikes Tree Service, LLC filed a petition under Chapter 11, Subchapter V of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Case No. 25-06540) on October 10, 2025, with $100,001 to $500,000 in assets and liabilities. Jeffrey Ainsworth, Esq., at Bransonlaw PLLC represents the Debtor as bankruptcy counsel. BLUE RIDGE: Mathes Balks at Mass Layoff Without Proper Notice ------------------------------------------------------------- James Mathes, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Blue Ridge Power, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00372 (W.D.N.C., October 23, 2025) is a class action complaint brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated former employees. According to the complaint, the Defendant abruptly terminated at least 300 employees, including Plaintiff, unilaterally and without proper notice to employees or staff. The Plaintiff was terminated from a worksite located in Fayetteville, North Carolina and operated by Defendant, on or around October 17, 2025, as part of a mass layoff without proper notice. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated former employees who worked for the Defendant and were terminated as part of the foreseeable mass lay off or plant closing ordered by Defendant on or around October 17, 2025, and within 90 days of that date, and who were not provided 60 days' advance written notice of their terminations by Defendant, as required by the WARN Act. The Plaintiff was employed full-time by Defendant for over six months at the time of termination. The Plaintiff worked at Defendant's facility in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Blue Ridge Power, LLC is a solar power engineering and construction firm in Fayetteville, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew E. Lee, Esq. Jeremy R. Williams, Esq. Katharine Batchelor, Esq. LEE SEGUI PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (855) 496-7500 E-mail: mlee@leesegui.com jwilliams@leesegui.com kbatchelor@leesegui.com - and - Sam K. Gladney, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 701 Market Street, Suite 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: sgladney@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com BLUE RIDGE: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice ------------------------------------------------------ TYLER BESHEARS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE RIDGE POWER, LLC; PINE GATE RENEWABLES, LLC, and ACT POWER SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00835 (W.D.N.C., Oct. 22, 2025) alleges violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("Warn Act"), the Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendants up to 60 days wages and benefits, pursuant to the Warn Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to provide 60 days' notice prior to terminating 500 or more employees without cause in a mass layoff, or before terminating 50 or more employees in a plant closing. The Plaintiff and the Class that were terminated constituted mass layoffs and a plant closing without the 60 days' notice in direct violation of the Warn Act, says the suit. Blue Ridge Power, LLC is a full-service EPC (Engineering, Procurement, Construction) company for solar and solar + storage projects in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Modla, Esq. CROMER BABB & PORTER, LLC 1418 Laurel Street (Suite A) (29201) Post Office Box 11675 Columbia, SC 29211 Telephone: (803) 799-9530 Facsimile: (803) 799-9533 Email: Jake@CromerBabb.com CADENCE PERFORMANCE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Murphy Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CADENCE PERFORMANCE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08806 (S.D.N.Y., October 23, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://us.usecadence.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on October 21, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Core Hydration Drink - Melonberry from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Cadence Performance, Inc. operates the website that offers hydration drinks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal CAESARS VIRGINIA: Court Dismisses Overtime Pay Claim in "Fowler" ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Levar Fowler, Plaintiff, v. Caesars Virginia, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00029 (W.D. Va.), Judge Thomas T. Cullen of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's newly added Fair Labor Standards Act and Virginia Wage Payment Act claims. The court dismissed without prejudice Count 6, a purported collective action under the FLSA for failure to compensate overtime at regular rate of pay, and Count 7, a Rule 23 putative class action for violations of the VWPA. In August 2024, Plaintiff Levar Fowler sued his former employer, Caesars Virginia, LLC, alleging that Caesars violated his federal and state rights when it fired him after he complained that a co-worker repeatedly referred to him as boy, called him the N-word, and engaged in other allegedly discriminatory and threatening conduct. Caesars moved to dismiss Fowler's complaint in part, seeking dismissal of his hostile-work-environment claim and his retaliation claim under the Virginia Whistleblower Protection Law. In March 2025, the court denied Caesars's motion as to the former claim and granted it as to the latter. After the court granted Caesars's first motion to dismiss in part, Fowler filed a motion to amend his complaint, stating that he discovered alleged FLSA and VWPA violations after reviewing documents produced in discovery; specifically, that Caesars failed to incorporate the pro-rated portion of the sign-on bonus he received into his regular rate of pay or overtime premiums. Fowler claimed that when he was hired, he received a signing bonus of $5,000 that was payable within the first 30 days of employment. Fowler's offer letter further provided that the sign-on bonus would be repayable to Caesars if he left voluntarily or was terminated for violating company policies within twelve months of employment. Because the bonus was to be paid off over a 12-month period, Fowler contended that the bonus should have been calculated into his minimum wages when determining his overtime rate over the following 12-month period. Because Caesars paid him using his pre-bonus regular rate for overtime, Caesars failed to include his bonus into his overtime rate. The court granted Fowler's motion to amend his complaint, and on August 13, 2025, Fowler filed an amended complaint, adding two claims: a purported collective action under the FLSA for failure to compensate overtime at regular rate of pay (Count VI); and a Rule 23 putative class action for violations of the VWPA (Count VII). After receiving a copy of the amended complaint, Caesars filed the present partial motion to dismiss on August 27, 2025, challenging only Counts 6 and 7. Caesars argued that Fowler's individual FLSA claim was time-barred under the FLSA's standard two-year statute of limitations and that Fowler's allegations were insufficient to entitle him to the three-year statute of limitations for willful violations of the FLSA. The court agreed. The court noted that the length of the FLSA's statute of limitations depends upon whether the violation at issue was willful. Generally, the limitations period for FLSA claims is two years, but the period is three years for willful violations. Fowler was terminated from his employment at Caesars on July 21, 2023; Fowler's cause of action under the FLSA accrued on that date, and accordingly, the latest date Fowler could file a general FLSA claim was July 21, 2025. The parties did not dispute that, because Fowler did not add his FLSA claim until he filed the amended complaint on August 13, 2025, that claim was time-barred under the standard two-year statute of limitations. Rather, the parties disputed whether Fowler's allegations adequately alleged a willful violation of the FLSA so as to entitle him to the three-year standard of limitations for willful violations of the FLSA. The court explained that an employer who either knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the FLSA has willfully violated the FLSA. At the motion to dismiss stage, the timeliness of an action based on the two-or three-year statute will be determined by whether a plaintiff has alleged a plausible FLSA claim and avers the employer's willful violation generally. Fowler relied on Farias v. Strickland Waterproofing Co., arguing that he pleaded sufficient facts that, when taken as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, support the position that Caesars knowingly violated the FLSA. Specifically, Fowler contended that the allegations contained in his amended complaint imply that Caesars knew that he received a nondiscretionary bonus and that it knew that failing to incorporate the bonus into his overtime rate violated the FLSA; thus, he argued, it is reasonable to infer that Caesars knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that its conduct violated the FLSA. The court found that Fowler's factual allegations were sufficient to state a plausible claim that Caesars violated the FLSA by undercompensating him for his overtime rate. However, the court determined that Fowler's assertions in his amended complaint and the attached exhibits failed to raise, either expressly or inferentially, a plausible allegation of Caesars's willfulness. In addition to failing to allege in plain terms that Caesars's alleged FLSA violation was willful, Fowler's amended complaint did not characterize the alleged violation as purposeful, intentional, or deliberate, or make any other allegations that would indicate that Fowler generally averred willfulness. The court explained that it was fundamentally different to allege that an employer was aware that an employee worked overtime but failed to pay them -- a case in which willfulness is properly inferred -- and what Fowler asserted - that Caesars paid him overtime but based on an allegedly incorrect rate of pay. Whereas the former scenario requires, almost as a matter of common sense, some degree of willfulness (or, at a minimum, recklessness), the latter does not. Fowler failed to include in his amended complaint any reference to willful or reckless conduct on Caesars's part, and the facts pleaded were not sufficient to infer as much. After accepting all of Fowler's allegations as true and drawing reasonable inferences in his favor, the court found that Fowler's allegations did not allow the court to reasonably infer that Caesars knew, or recklessly disregarded the possibility, that its practices violated the FLSA. Though Fowler did not need to allege specific facts at this stage, his failure to aver Caesars's willfulness or recklessness generally required him to provide some kind of factual support. Because Fowler's individual FLSA claim was time-barred, his collective action claim on behalf of similarly situated class members was dismissed. The court explained that standing in a class action is analyzed based on the personal injury allegations made by the named plaintiff, and that without a sufficient allegation of harm to the named plaintiff in particular, plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of establishing standing. Without a justiciable action as to Fowler individually, his purported collective action under the FLSA failed. Accordingly, the court dismissed Count 6. The court noted that Fowler's claim under the VWPA was inextricably tied to Fowler's FLSA claim, as both claims arose under the same facts. Because Fowler's FLSA claim had been dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his VWPA claim. Like Fowler's FLSA claim, his Rule 23 class action claim under the VWPA was also dismissed. The court explained that without an appropriate class representative, courts will not make an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only. Accordingly, the court dismissed Count 7. For the reasons discussed, Caesars's motion to dismiss was granted. Counts 6 and 7 of the amended complaint were dismissed without prejudice. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2uPs2F from PacerMonitor.com CAREATHOME MEDICAL: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice -------------------------------------------------------------- JOCELYN CERVANTES, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAREATHOME MEDICAL PRACTICE, P.C. d/b/a VESTA HEALTHCARE; CAREATHOME MEDICAL PRACTICE (KY) P.S.C.; CAREATHOME MEDICAL PRACTICE (CA), P.C.; ESSEN MEDICAL ASSOCIATES PC; ESSEN MEDICAL URGICARE PLLC d/b/a METRO URGICARE; and DOES 1–10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-02789 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 21, 2025) alleges violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("Warn Act"), the Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendant up to 60 days wages and benefits, pursuant to the Warn Act. Careathome Medical Practice, P.C. d/b/a Vesta Healthcare provides healthcare consulting services. The Company specializes in developing healthcare business strategy, improving processes, managing programmes, raising finance, constructing health facilities, and procuring equipment to training clinical staff. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua I. White, Esq. Kyle DeCamp, Esq. William M. Hogg, Esq. LAUREL EMPLOYMENT LAW APC 808 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (323) 551-9221 Facsimile: (310) 654-4093 Email: josh@laurelemploymentlaw.com kyle.decamp@laurelemploymentlaw.com william@laurelemploymentlaw.com CHINA SUMMIT: Loses Bid to Junk 2nd Amended Complaint in "Yam" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Wanglap Yam, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Qi Xin, aka Brandon Qi; China Summit Capital, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 23-CV-9793 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied without prejudice the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The Court noted that in its October 23, 2025 order, the Defendants were directed to immediately clarify whether they intended to move to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint or whether they intended to file an answer to the Second Amended Complaint. The Defendants were further directed to file a single set of papers if they chose to file a motion to dismiss, specifically one notice of motion, one memorandum of law, and one set of any supporting exhibits. After the Court issued its order, the Defendants filed another motion to dismiss that was substantially similar to the motion to dismiss at docket entry 84, which the Court denied without prejudice in the October 23, 2025 order. Because the Defendants did not file a clarification or combine their arguments into a single motion to dismiss, the Court assumed that the Defendants filed the latest motion without consulting the Court's order. Accordingly, the Court denied the motion without prejudice to the Defendants promptly refiling it as one single set of papers along with the other motions that the Court already denied. The Court directed the Defendants to follow the Court's October 23, 2025 order. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aKSj1r from PacerMonitor.com CITY OF NEWARK: Loses Bid to Junk Police Officers' OT Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Vincent DeLeva, Jamie Pinto, and Elddy Torres, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City of Newark, Defendant, No. 25-cv-02256 (MEF)(SDA) (D.N.J.), Judge Michael E. Farbiarz of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied without prejudice the Defendant's motion to dismiss a Class/Collective Action Complaint. The Plaintiffs, police officers, sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq. The complaint and the parties' briefing identified 29 U.S.C. Section 207(a)(1) as the key part of the FLSA at issue. However, the Court noted that Section 207(k) provides a distinct way of calculating overtime for employees in law enforcement activities, presumably like the police-officer-Plaintiffs. The Court stated it makes little sense to think through how Section 207(k) might apply in this case without the full benefit of the parties' views. The motion to dismiss was therefore denied, without prejudice. This will allow the parties to alter their briefing, should they wish to, in light of the ways that Section 207(k) may impact this case. A schedule for renewed Rule 12(b)(6) briefing, if any, will be set by the United States Magistrate Judge. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UW4fjv from PacerMonitor.com COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Barton Sues Over Mislabeled Kids Toothpaste ----------------------------------------------------------------- NATHAN BARTON; and CYNTHIA FAHRNKOPF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02833-JES-JLB (S.D. Cal., Oct. 22, 2025) alleges that the Defendant makes misleading and deceptive statements on the boxes and tubes of its hello kids toothpaste (collectively, the "Products") in order to appeal to children and their caregivers, and to increase sales of the Products, without disclosing that it contains lead. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant intentionally labels and flavors the Products to appeal to children and their caregivers, including by using names and flavors such as unicorn sparkle, bubble gum flavor, smiling shark, fruit punch flavor, magical mermaid, orange dreamsicle flavor, and dragon dazzle, blue raspberry flavor. Based on Defendant's Representations, the Plaintiffs and reasonable consumers of the Defendant's Products believe they are purchasing a premium children's toothpaste that is child-safe, and is free from potentially harmful elements and ingredients. Defendant intentionally makes the label Representations and intentionally fails to disclose the lead in the Products. The disclosure of lead in the Products would negatively impact Defendant's sales of the Products and its bottom line. If consumers knew that the Products contain lead, particularly in the amounts set forth herein, they would not purchase the Products. Colgate-Palmolive Company is a consumer products company that markets its products throughout the world. The Company's products include toothpaste, toothbrushes, shampoos, deodorants, bar and liquid soaps, dishwashing liquid, and laundry products, as well as pet nutrition products for cats and dogs. [BN] that the Products contain lead. Naomi B. Spector, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLP 3451 Via Montebello, Ste.192-212 Carlsbad, CA 92009 Telephone: (310) 400-1053 Facsimile: (212) 202-6364 Email: nspector@kamberlaw.com CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Amende Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN AMENDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-16954 (D.N.J., Oct. 27, 2025) is an action arising from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that the Plaintiff and the Class Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information that was impacted in a data breach (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering, ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, says the suit. Conduent Business Services, LLC offers digital payments, claims processing, benefit administration, automated tolling, regulatory compliance, and distributed learning services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Griffin Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- ERIN ADAMS-GRIFFIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-16953 (D.N.J., Oct. 27, 2025) is an action arising from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that the Plaintiff and the Class Personally Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information that was impacted in a data breach (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Plaintiff and Class Members have allegedly suffered and are at an imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering, ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Breach. Conduent Business Services, LLC offers digital payments, claims processing, benefit administration, automated tolling, regulatory compliance, and distributed learning services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com DISCORD INC: Fails to Protect Clients' Personal Info, Marquez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ NICHOLAS MARQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DISCORD, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-09102 (N.D. Cal., October 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of implied contract, injunctive/declaratory relief, and violation of Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach beginning on September 20, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Discord, Inc. is a software company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amber L. Schubert, Esq. Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Amber L. Schubert, Esq. Sonum Dixit, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St., Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 Email: rschubert@sjk.law aschubert@sjk.law sdixit@sjk.law DOMINICK DALE: "Snyder" Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as JON SNYDER and SHORELINE APPRAISAL SERVICES INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, against DOMINICK R. DALE, ESQ., individually, and THE LAW OFFICE OF DOMINICK R. DALE, ESQ., Case No. 24-CV-8940 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Victor Marrero of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the motion filed by defendants Dominick R. Dale, Esq. and the Law Office of Dominick R. Dale, Esq. to dismiss the claims alleged by plaintiffs Jon Snyder and Shoreline Appraisal Services Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The Court dismissed the claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Snyder alleged that Dale engaged in a direct collusive effort to commit fraud with Merchant Cash Advance Settlement Companies. However, the Court found it could not glean from Snyder's Complaint how the alleged damages tie directly to Dale, nor could it determine the total amount of damages Snyder alleged he or the class have suffered. As courts in this district have noted, a plaintiff cannot sidestep the jurisdictional question simply by pleading an indeterminate amount of damages, accompanied by a conclusory statement that the amount-in-controversy threshold is met. Snyder alleged that RDM seeks $16,195 in damages in its pending action. However, Snyder did not claim that he has been held liable under that action. Snyder asserted that Dale sent a request for payment seeking payment of approximately $18,000 for fees and a revised request with a prefilled amount of $3,500. But Snyder did not allege that any transfer of payment was ever made. Snyder contended that Dale forced him to incur prejudicial judicial filings made without knowledge or consent, which increased the costs and fees that MCA incurred, and failed to advise Snyder that the underlying MCAR Agreement required Snyder to pay those litigation costs and fees. However, the Court found that Snyder failed to plausibly allege how any damages trace directly to Dale. Pursuant to the Citadel Agreement, which incorporated the terms of the MCAR Agreement, Citadel would pay 100% of attorney's fees and pay 100% of the court costs and/or arbitration related fees and costs if an action was brought against Snyder. Snyder also failed to detail how Dale's filings increased MCA's litigation costs or fees, assert the amount of any increase, or claim that he has actually paid additional litigation costs and fees to MCA as a result. Snyder alleged that companies such as MCA engage attorneys like Dale, among others, for one purpose -- to delay legal proceedings long enough so that the Debt Settlement Company can fraudulently siphon enough money from the unsuspecting merchant. Snyder contended that Dale's failure to resolve his debts has resulted in further damage, including interest, increased costs, and decreased creditworthiness. However, Snyder contracted with MCA, not Dale, to settle his debts, and Snyder did not allege facts supporting how Dale contributed to MCA's failure. Snyder cited prejudicial judicial filings and asserted that Dale filed an answer in the action brought by RDM, as well as a motion to dismiss, both of which Snyder asserted he never reviewed or approved. After RDM filed a motion for summary judgment, Dale also submitted an opposition and participated in an oral argument. However, the court denied RDM's motion and Snyder offered no facts supporting how Dale's other filings were prejudicial. Snyder claimed Dale completely ignored discovery requests that had been filed on the docket on October 18, 2024, resulting in the waiver of his rights. However, attorneys from B&B had taken over Snyder's representation a week before the discovery deadline, which the court had set for November 28, 2024. Snyder asserted that even if he has not been held personally liable, Dale has appeared in hundreds of actions where he has filed the same verified pleadings, discovery requests, and motion papers, increasing the liability of the putative class members. However, the Court noted that although doubts regarding whether the jurisdictional amount is met are resolved in plaintiff's favor, on the present record, the Court simply has no way to determine whether Snyder's allegations reach the jurisdictional amount. Snyder claimed an entitlement to damages inclusive of an award of punitive damages and argued that the Court should include that claim in its amount-in-controversy analysis. However, the Court noted that although district courts can consider punitive damages, a trial court is plainly not compelled to accept a claim of punitive damages, however unwarranted, made for the purpose of conferring federal jurisdiction. Furthermore, a claim for punitive damages is to be given closer scrutiny than a claim for actual damages when calculating a jurisdictional amount. Because the alleged facts did not plausibly suggest that the claims, in aggregate, meet the jurisdictional minimum, the Court declined to rely on Snyder's punitive damages claim to meet that threshold. The Court found that Snyder fell far short of alleging facts that plausibly support a $5 million amount in controversy. Accordingly, Snyder did not satisfy the requirements of Section 1332(d). Dale argued that even if Snyder could establish subject matter jurisdiction, the Court must decline to exercise that jurisdiction pursuant to two CAFA exceptions - the local controversy exception and the home state exception. These exceptions are designed to draw a delicate balance between making a federal forum available to genuinely national litigation and allowing the state courts to retain cases when the controversy is strongly linked to that state. The parties disputed whether more than two-thirds of the putative class members are citizens of New York, the state in which Snyder filed the action. Snyder argued that Dale had not provided any records to show that more than two-thirds of class members' citizenship is in fact New York. However, Snyder defined both putative classes in his Complaint as all persons, merchants, customers and clients in the State of New York who fell victim to Defendants' direct collusive effort to commit fraud. The Court reasonably inferred that more than two-thirds of the putative class members would be citizens of New York, as the Complaint itself defined the class as all persons, merchants, customers and clients in the State of New York. Under Section 1332(d)(4)(B), the home state exception, a district court is to decline to exercise jurisdiction where the primary defendants and at least two-thirds of the class members are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed. The Court found this exception applied and declined to exercise jurisdiction accordingly. To the extent Snyder asserted ordinary diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332(a), that argument failed for the same reasons. Federal subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity is limited and available only when the plaintiff and defendant are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. The Court found that for the reasons already set forth, Snyder did not plausibly plead the necessary amount in controversy to confer the Court subject matter jurisdiction in this matter. Because the Court found that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims, the Court did not address Dale's argument that Snyder additionally fails to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The motion filed by defendants Dominick R. Dale, Esq. and the Law Office of Dominick R. Dale, Esq. to dismiss the claims was granted, and the claims were dismissed without prejudice. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5SQ85u from PacerMonitor.com DULCICH INC: Poitras Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info ---------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD POITRAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DULCICH INC., D/B/A PACIFIC SEAFOOD, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01954-JR (D. Ore., October 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and personal health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered on September 29, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Dulcich Inc., doing business as Pacific Seafood, is a family-owned seafood company, headquartered in Clackamas, Oregon. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Hilliard, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF MARK J. HILLIARD 1233 Alpine Road Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (310) 709-9749 Email: mark.hilliard.esq@gmail.com - and - Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Email: sec@colevannote.com EXPRESS MINI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baeza Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- MARDONIO BAEZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXPRESS MINI MARKET CORP. d/b/a EXPRESS MINI MARKET DELI; ANDRES GIMENEZ; EDUARDO CABRAL; and JOHANA CABRAL, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08834 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Baeza was employed by the Defendants as a staff. Express Mini Market Corp. d/b/a Express Mini Market Deli is a company operating a convenience store (a type of mini-market) that includes a deli, selling everyday items and prepared foods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Samuel, Esq. THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM 1441 Broadway Suite 6085 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 Email: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com HOT-PEPPERS INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Cantwell Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- LISA CANTWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HOT-PEPPERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05929 (E.D.N.Y., October 23, 2025) is a civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website -- www.hotpeppersinc.com -- to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times most recently June 23, 2025, to access Defendant's website from her home but encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online content and services. The Plaintiff asserts that the Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Hot-Peppers, Inc. offers a diverse range of Mexican dishes, including tacos made with freshly prepared fillings, house-made salsas, and warm tortillas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com HUEL INC: Protein Powder Contains Toxic Chemicals, Albright Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMBER ALBRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUEL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01972 (S.D. Ill., Oct. 27, 2025) alleges violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant sells protein powder products, which includes the Huel Black Edition Powder (the "Product"). While the Defendant markets the Product as a "High-protein complete meal," the Product is, in fact, contaminated with lead and cadmium. The Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product had she known the Product contained lead and cadmium, substances which are known to be hazardous to human health. Huel Inc. operates as a specialty online retailer. The Company offers nutritionally complete food that contains a balance of all essential vitamins and minerals, protein, essential fats, carbs, fiber, and phytonutrients in a single product. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam C. York, Esq. Zachary Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 1016 West Jackson Blvd. Ste. 197 Chicago, Illinois 60607 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 Email: adam@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com JOEY'S FINE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Acome Alleges ----------------------------------------------------- CORY ACOME; AIMEE FLOWERS; AMANDA AMIDON; and ZACHARY ABDELHADY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOEY'S FINE ITALIAN LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-01497-GTS-MJK (N.D.N.Y., Oct. 24, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as kitchen staff. Joey's Fine Foods, Inc. produce fresh baked goods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Gattuso, Esq. Ryan G. Files, Esq. GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiff 7030 East Genesee Street Fayetteville, NY 13066 Telephone: (315) 314-8000 Email: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com KAOTIC AUTO: Perez Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Mechanics ----------------------------------------------------------- ANDRES DE LOS SANTOS PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAOTIC AUTO PARTS & MOTORCYCLE REPAIR CORP., MICHAEL DELUCA, KEVIN ROSS, and ANTHONY WHITE, JR., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05899 (E.D.N.Y., October 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, unlawful deductions, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a mechanic from September 25, 2018, until March 3, 2025. Kaotic Auto Parts & Motorcycle Repair Corp. is an owner and operator of an auto-body shop in Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edgar M. Rivera, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 KETTLE & FIRE: Keirsted Files Suit Over Deceptive Bone Broth Labels ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Keirsted, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. KETTLE and FIRE, a Texas Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-02037-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla., October 22, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for misleading food labeling. The complaint relates that Kettle & Fire manufactures and markets bone broth and soups. Its product offerings include beef bone broth, mushroom chicken bone broth, chicken bone broth, tomato soup, butternut squash soup, Thai curry soup, beef chili soup, and miso soup. Its products are sold at 22,000 stores nationwide, from Whole Foods to Walmart and Target, as well as on its own website and at Amazon, Walmart.com, and more. In May 2025, Plaintiff purchased the Kettle & Fire Chicken Bone Broth manufactured by Defendant from Publix. When Ms. Keirsted made her purchase, she believed that the Product contained a heightened amount of protein because she saw that the Bone Broth Product was labeled as containing 19 grams of protein per serving on the packaging. However, these claims are false or misleading, asserts the complaint. The protein content was material to Plaintiff, and had she known that the protein content was significantly lower than the represented 19 grams, she would not have purchased the Product or would have paid significantly less for it, says the suit. Plaintiff, Wendy Keirsted, is a a citizen of Brevard County, Florida, residing in Titusville, Florida. Defendant Kettle & Fire was started by Nick Mares and Justin Mares in August 2015, touting the benefits of bone broth -- collagen, gelatin, and other amino acids. It has its principal place of business in Austin, Texas and is licensed to conduct business in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William C. Wright, Esq. Kelly Mata, Esq. THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite P-300 West Palm Beach, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 514-0904 E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com kellymata@wrightlawoffice.com LANGDON & COMPANY: Marino Class Suit Removed to E.D.N.C. -------------------------------------------------------- The case GABRIELLE MARINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LANGDON & COMPANY, LLP, Case No. 25CV031425-910, was removed from the Superior Court of North Carolina for the County of Wake to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on October 22, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00668-M to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients. Langdon & Company, LLP is an accounting firm in North Carolina. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: William J. McMahon, IV, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP One West Fourth Street, Suite 850 Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Telephone: (336) 721-6860 Facsimile: (336) 748-9112 Email: bmcmahon@constangy.com LENCHO OILFIELD: Court Denies Bid to Enforce "Chavez" Deal ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Andrew Chavez et al, Plaintiffs, v. Lencho Oilfield Services Inc et al, Defendants, Civil Action No. 23-cv-181 (W.D. La.), Magistrate Judge Mark L. Hornsby of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division, denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Settlement for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs filed this action against the Defendants alleging that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime wages to them and other similarly situated employees. The parties reached an agreement and entered into a written settlement agreement in March 2024. The parties advised the court of their settlement, and the court entered an Order of Dismissal that stated that the case was dismissed, without prejudice to the right to reopen the action if settlement was not consummated within 90 days. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Defendants were required to pay $40,000 in payment plan installments. The Plaintiffs reported that the Defendants were delinquent numerous times. The final payment was received on June 30, 2025, and there is a remaining balance due under the settlement agreement of $13,850. Efforts to collect that final amount have been unsuccessful. Paragraphs 18-20 of the settlement agreement provided that any party may institute an action to enforce the terms of the agreement and seek damages, including attorneys' fees and costs, in the event of a breach of any provision of the agreement. Paragraph 20 stated that Chavez and Moneyhun, in the event Defendants breach the agreement by nonpayment, shall be entitled to recover the balance due plus attorneys' fees, expenses, and liquidated damages in the amount of $20,000 to be apportioned on a pro rata basis. Paragraph 19 provided that the Parties agree that the Western District of Louisiana shall retain jurisdiction in this matter for enforcement of the agreement, including the award of damages, attorneys' fees and costs related to any breach thereof. The parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice that stated it was stipulated and agreed among the parties that all claims asserted by the plaintiffs were dismissed, with prejudice with respect to Mr. Chavez and Mr. Moneyhun, and without prejudice as to other similarly situated individuals. The stipulation made no reference to the settlement agreement or retention of jurisdiction to enforce it. The court signed the proposed order that the parties submitted along with the stipulation. The order included no reference to the settlement agreement and did not state that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it. The settlement agreement was also not attached to the stipulation or order, and it does not appear anywhere in the record other than as an exhibit to the motion to enforce it. The court stated that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and have an obligation to assess whether jurisdiction exists, even if no party raises the issue. The court noted that a similar stipulation and order, lacking in reference to the settlement agreement, was entered in Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 114 S. Ct. 1673 (1994), and the Supreme Court held that the district court lacked ancillary jurisdiction to address a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The court observed that Kokkonen stated that the situation would be different if the parties' obligation to comply with the terms of the agreement had been made part of the order of dismissal, either by a provision retaining jurisdiction over the settlement agreement or by incorporating the terms of the agreement in the order. In that event, a breach of the agreement would be a violation of the order, and ancillary jurisdiction would exist to enforce the agreement. Absent such action, however, enforcement of the settlement agreement is for state courts, unless there is some independent basis for federal jurisdiction. The court emphasized that Kokkonen requires a district court to clearly indicate its intention within the dismissal order itself by expressly incorporating the agreement's terms. The court determined that neither the stipulation nor order of dismissal entered in this case meet any of the exceptions to Kokkonen. The court further noted that there is also a lack of an independent basis for jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs' motion asked for the remaining balance of $13,850, liquidated damages of $20,000, and attorneys' fees of $2,500, for a total of $36,350. Even if there were diversity of citizenship, the amount in controversy would not be sufficient to provide an independent basis for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332. The court acknowledged that the parties did state in their settlement agreement that the Parties agree that the Western District of Louisiana shall retain jurisdiction in this matter for enforcement of the agreement, including the award of damages, attorneys' fees and costs related to any breach thereof. However, the court stated that subject matter jurisdiction is the court's statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate a case. No action of the parties can confer subject-matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court held that in this case, the dismissal process did not include the necessary provisions to comply with Kokkonen and give the federal court jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. There is also no independent basis for jurisdiction over claim for breach of the agreement. Quarrels about legal settlements - even settlements of federal claims - typically involve only state law, like disagreements about other contracts. Therefore, the court denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Settlement for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs remain free to assert their claims for breach of the settlement agreement in an appropriate state court. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MQ6mGP from PacerMonitor.com MARYLAND: Removes Battle Suit to District of Maryland ----------------------------------------------------- The Defendants in the case of URSULA BATTLE; CONSTANCE FARRELL; FRANK LEE; YOLANDA PUZZO; and THE ARC MONTGOMERY COUNTY, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; MEENA SESHAMANI; and STATE OF MARYLAND, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the State of Maryland, County of Montgomery (Case No. C-15-CV-25-005325) to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on Oct. 24, 2025. The Maryland Department of Health is an agency of the government of Maryland responsible for public health issues. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Benjamin A. Bor, Esq. Sarah P. Belardi, Esq. Christopher Gozdor, Esq. ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 300 W. Preston Street, Suite 302 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 767-1358 Facsimile: (410) 333-7894 Email: benjamin.bor@maryland.gov sarah.belardi1@maryland.gov christopher.gozdor@maryland.gov MCKINLEY PAPER: Ehmann Employment Suit Removed to E.D. Wis. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as ERIC EHMANN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MCKINLEY PAPER AND PACKAGING COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2025 CV 001127, was removed from the Circuit Court of Outagamie County, Wisconsin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on October 23, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01627-BBC to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's claims arise from his employment at Defendant's Wisconsin paper-producing facility located in Outagamie County, Wisconsin. In his Complaint, the Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees pursuant to the Wisconsin Wage Payment and Collection Law, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, alleging claims of unpaid overtime wages and unpaid regular wages/failure to pay an agreed-upon wage. McKinley Paper and Packaging Company is an integrated paper and packaging company.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Craig A. Kubiak, Esq. AMUNDSEN DAVIS, LLC 2800 E. Enterprise Avenue Appleton, WI 54913 Telephone: (920) 750-5049 E-mail: ckubiak@amundsendavislaw.com MERITAGE HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- DARRISSA BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERITAGE HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-02972-TLP-tmp (W.D. Tenn., Oct. 24, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Brown was employed by the Defendant as a staff. Meritage Hospitality Group, Inc. owns and operates Wendy's franchised restaurants in Michigan, California, Florida, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: O'Neal Sues Over Roundup's Danger to Human Health ------------------------------------------------------------------- FREDDIE O'NEAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00960-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La., October 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of duty in the manufacture under the Louisiana Products Liability Act, manufacturing and design defect, inadequate warning, non-conformity to express warranty, fraud, misrepresentation, and suppression, and violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of its herbicide Roundup. According to the complaint, Roundup contains the active ingredient glyphosate, which is dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. As a result of exposure to the Defendant's Roundup, the Plaintiff and Class members have sustained personal injuries, says the suit. Monsanto Company is an agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology company based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Enochs, Esq. Betsy Barnes, Esq. MORRIS BART LLC 601 Poydras Street, 24th Floor New Orleans LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 525-8000 Facsimile: (833) 277-4214 Email: jenochs@morrisbart.com bbarnes@morrisbart.com MULBERRY PARK: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ TANISIA BOWMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MULBERRY PARK SILKS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13016 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 24, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://mulberryparksilks.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Mulberry Park Silks, LLC is a luxury bedding company that offers high-quality silk sheets, pillowcases, and other sleep accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (716) 281-5496 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law NEWELL BRANDS: Faces Martin Suit Over Defective Countertop Ovens ---------------------------------------------------------------- KARIN MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEWELL BRANDS INC. and SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06075-AT (N.D. Ga., October 23, 2025) seeks to recover actual and nominal damages, restitution, and other equitable and injunctive relief for violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, unjust enrichment, and negligence. According to the complaint, the Defendants marketed, sold, and delivered each of Oster French Door Countertop Ovens to consumers with an identical defect: defective spring-loaded, front-open doors. The spring-loaded hinges in these doors fail to securely hold the doors open and snap shut, causing the doors to close unexpectedly, burning consumers during ordinary use. The Defendants have known of the safety defect since at least 2022, but they failed to disclose the safety defect to consumers. The safety defect existed at the time that the ovens left Defendants' possession and control, but did not manifest until users, like Plaintiff, experienced door malfunctions while using the Ovens, says the suit. Newell Brands Inc. is an American manufacturer, marketer and distributor of consumer and commercial products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Caplan, Esq. T. Brandon Waddell, Esq. CAPLAN COBB LLC 75 Fourteenth Street NE, Suite 2700 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 596-5600 Facsimile: (404) 596-5604 E-mail: mcaplan@caplancobb.com - and - Mark J. Dearman, Esq. Dorothy P. Antullis, Esq. Nicolle B. Brito, Esq. Anny M. Martin, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com dantullis@rgrdlaw.com nbrito@rgrdlaw.com amartin@rgrdlaw.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Jason H. Alperstein, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com jalperstein@carelleabyrne.com NEWELL BRANDS: Kuntzsch Sues Over Oster Ovens' Design Defect ------------------------------------------------------------ CETA KUNTZSCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEWELL BRANDS INC. d/b/a SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01476-AMN-TWD (N.D.N.Y., October 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of New York General Business Law, unjust enrichment, negligence, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty. The case arises from the Defendant's deceptive and misleading business practices with respect to the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of its Oster French Door Countertop Ovens. According to the complaint, the Defendant's ovens have a design defect, which can create a burn hazard for all users of the products. As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have been injured and sustained damages. Newell Brands Inc., doing business as Sunbeam Products, Inc., is a consumer electronics manufacturer in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com NJ LENDERS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Albanese Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- BRANDY ALBANESE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NJ LENDERS CORP., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-16823-JXN-MAH (D.N.J., Oct. 22, 2025) is a class action on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") including names and Social Security numbers (collectively "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on October 10, 2025 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, the Defendant failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. NJ Lenders Corp. provides mortgage financing services. The Company offers reverse, fixed and adjustable rate, FHA, VA home, and non-warrantable condo financing mortgages. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Tele0hone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com PACIFIC SEAFOOD: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Fernandez Says --------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL FERNANDEZ III, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PACIFIC SEAFOOD, D/B/A DULCICH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01971-AR (D. Ore., October 23, 2025) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information about its current and former employees including Plaintiff. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. The complaint alleges that cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII/PHI. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class' PII/PHI in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. Pacific Seafood is an Oregon corporation that fishes, processes, and distributes seafood products throughout the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Jason T. Dennett, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Ave., Ste. 1700 Seattle, WA 98101-3147 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com jdennett@tousley.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com PARADISE POOL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ahmed Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ ILYES AHMED, by guardian and next friend Mohamed Mohamed; ZAKARIA HERSI; HAMZA MOHAMED; FARIS MUSTAFA; and ABDIRAHMAN SAID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PARADISE POOL SERVICE LLC; and EDWARD D. GARCIA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01878 (E.D Va., Oct. 27, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as lifeguards. Paradise Pool Service LLC is in the business of providing pool services and lifeguard staffing throughout the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew T. Sutter, Esq. SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC 7540A Little River Turnpike Annandale, VA 22003 Telephone: (703) 256-1800 Facsimile: (703) 991-6116 Email: matt@sutterandterpak.com PATSY'S ITALIAN: Court OKs Conditional Certification in "Hoti" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Kreshnik Hoti, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Patsy's Italian Restaurant, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 24-CV-6991 (JGLC) (HJR) (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action on October 27, 2025. Plaintiff Hoti worked as a server at Patsy's from 2017 through September 2024. Plaintiff Ymeraga worked as a server at Patsy's from 2018 through September 2024. Defendants Sal, Joseph and Lisa Scognamillo are co-owners of Patsy's. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants violated FLSA requirements regarding payment for overtime work. Under the FLSA, employers must pay employees not less than one and one-half times the regular rate for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week. The Plaintiffs asserted that they often worked more than forty hours a week, but were routinely paid for less time and did not receive overtime payments due to the Defendants' manipulation of time records. Specifically, the Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants made them and other servers alter their time records to reflect fewer hours, including by: (1) instructing servers to clock out during their shifts and to clock back in hours later; (2) requiring servers to work after clocking out; and (3) maintaining a Point of Sale (POS) system that did not allow servers to clock in until an hour or more after starting work. The Plaintiffs also complained that the Defendants misappropriated tips. While tip pooling is permissible, an employer may not keep tips received by its employees for any purposes, including allowing managers or supervisors to keep any portion of employees' tips. The Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants diverted tips from a mandatory tip pool in several ways, including by: (1) running one daily tip report before all tables had settled and a second report after the checks had closed, retaining the difference between the two tip reports; (2) retaining tips generated by a specific server while distributing to employees only those tips generated by the remaining servers; and (3) requiring a manager to process split bills and then diverting tips from large tables. The Court noted that a modest factual showing cannot be satisfied simply by unsupported assertions, or by an affidavit or declaration made on information or belief. Moreover, to infer the common policy required for conditional certification, plaintiffs must demonstrate a factual nexus between their situation and those of other similarly situated employees. The Defendants argued that the Court should apply the modest plus standard because all necessary evidence has been disclosed to conclusively determine whether other servers were denied tips. However, the Court found these cases inapposite as in each case discovery pertaining to conditional certification was already complete. In contrast, since the Plaintiffs filed the Motion on April 11, 2025, discovery has been extended several times and, as of the date of this Opinion and Order, fact discovery is scheduled to close on November 14, 2025, and expert discovery will close on March 1, 2026. Therefore, the Court applied the modest factual showing standard instead of the modest plus standard. The Court found that the Plaintiffs satisfied their minimal burden of demonstrating that they and potential collective members were subjected to a common policy of not properly compensating servers for overtime work. Although the Plaintiffs did not provide dates, they recalled witnessing specific servers who were prevented from clocking in at the beginning of their shifts, were required to work after clocking out, were told to keep clocked-in hours to a minimum, and clocked out in the middle of their shifts while continuing to work, then clocking back in near the end of their shifts. The Plaintiffs further asserted that they knew specific servers worked over forty hours per week because those workers told the Plaintiffs that they worked overtime. While these declarations are somewhat conclusory, they are sufficient to satisfy the modest burden required at this stage. The Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient detail to demonstrate that putative class members were subjected to a common policy in which they were not adequately compensated for overtime work. However, the Court found that the Plaintiffs provided a factual nexus by identifying particular practices said to prevent all servers from accurately recording their time, thereby ensuring they would not accrue overtime pay, and identifying by name other servers they observed being subjected to these same practices. These assertions are sufficient to make a modest showing that other servers did not receive adequate overtime payments as their overtime work was not properly recorded. The Court noted that the Defendants' argument regarding the incredible accusation that the Defendants implemented and maintained a compliant wage and hour record keeping system only for the purpose of generating falsified records was an argument regarding the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims. The Court will not resolve factual disputes or make credibility determinations in deciding this Motion. Therefore, the Defendants' arguments are unavailing at this stage, and the Plaintiffs met their burden for conditional certification of a collective regarding their overtime payment claim. The Court found that the Plaintiffs also met the minimal burden of showing a common policy or practice regarding misappropriation of tips. The Plaintiffs sought to represent a collective of servers at Patsy's. In their declarations, the Plaintiffs defined servers as all the employees who the Defendants paid pursuant to the tip credit, whose job duties included waiting tables, and who participated in the tip pool at Patsy's. The Plaintiffs also explained that all servers were required to participate in the tip pool. The Court explained that the Plaintiffs' proposed collective is similarly situated by definition, since all tipped employees were required to participate in the pool. And because any distribution from the pool affects all participants, the members of the collective must have been subject to a common policy or practice. To support their claims, the Plaintiffs claimed they spoke with other servers about the amount of tips they contributed to the tip pool, and servers would routinely receive less than what they contributed. The Defendants did not dispute the existence of a tip pool. Therefore, as the Plaintiffs' allegations regarding tip misappropriation sufficed to show, for purposes of conditional certification, that other servers were subjected to a common policy or practice, the Plaintiffs satisfied their burden at this stage. Finally, the Defendants asked the Court to use its discretion to deny conditional certification because this case is highly unusual and is a dispute between competing businesses with a complicated history of family conflict over the control of the Patsy's brand and legacy. The Court noted that the Defendants cited no authority for denying conditional certification on this basis. Even assuming that the Plaintiffs are pawns in a larger family conflict, that would not justify the FLSA violations alleged here. The Defendants' final argument is not persuasive. The Court ordered the Defendants to provide a list (in Excel format if possible) including the names, last known addresses, last known phone numbers, last known e-mail addresses, dates of employment, and position(s) held for servers employed at Patsy's on or after September 17, 2021. The Court approved the proposed notice, subject to certain revisions. The Court directed the Plaintiffs to include the Defendants' counsel's contact information in the Notice. The Court also ordered the Plaintiffs' counsel to file any consent forms they receive on the ECF docket within twenty-four hours of receipt. The Notice shall also advise opt-in plaintiffs that if they decide to join this case (whether through Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP or other counsel) they should not contact the Defendants' lawyers and must instead rely on their attorney to do so. The Court permitted dissemination of notice by text message, but ordered the Plaintiffs to replace the word claiming with the words that alleges to avoid any confusion over the certainty of the claims. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion for conditional certification was granted in part and denied in part. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kPzaO4 from PacerMonitor.com PAYACTIV INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bernard Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- EMILY BERNARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAYACTIV, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-09130 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to adequately secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and tens of thousands of other individuals' personally identifying information including names and Social Security Numbers. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Data Breach on September 29, 2025 was directly and proximately caused by the Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and industry-standard data security practices necessary to protect its systems from a foreseeable and preventable cyberattack. TheDefendant has not informed the Plaintiff and Class Members how the "cyber criminals" accessed Defendant's systems, the root cause of the Data Breach, whether the exfiltrated information was encrypted or anonymized, why it took so long to notify victims, or what specific remedial steps Defendant has taken to safeguard PII within its systems and networks, says the suit. As a result of the Defendant's conduct and the resulting Data Breach, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' privacy has been invaded, their PII is now in the hands of criminals, they have either suffered or will suffer fraud or identity theft, or face an imminent and ongoing risk of identity theft and fraud. PayActiv, Inc. operates financial wellness platform. The Company offers solutions for budgeting, financial counseling, debt payoff, and earned wage access. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Amber L. Schubert, Esq. (S.B.N. 278696) Sonum Dixit, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St., Suite 200 San Francisco, California 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 Email: rschubert@sjk.law aschubert@sjk.law sdixit@sjk.law PRESS 195 RESTAURANT: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- LISA CANTWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRESS 195 RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05927 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 23, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.press195.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. PRESS 195 RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. the company operates the website www.press195.com which offers users the ability to peruse the restaurant’s menus and to place an online order. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com PRIMAL QUEEN: Blank Sues Over Illegal Automatic Renewal ------------------------------------------------------- ALLISON BLANK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIMAL QUEEN LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-02810 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 23, 2025) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant for engaging in an illegal "automatic renewal" scheme. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, whenever a consumer purchases Defendant's products -- whether it be on the Website or through a social-media advertisement -- the Defendant surreptitiously enrolls the consumer in an automatically renewing "subscription" that, unbeknownst to the consumer at the time, results in a recurring charges to the consumer's credit card, debit card, or third-party payment account ("Payment Method") every month, in perpetuity until canceled (the "Surprise Subscriptions"). The Plaintiff and the Class sustained damages as a result of the Defendant's wrongful conduct for failure to obtain the Plaintiff's and the Class's affirmative consent to the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service offer terms associated with the Surprise Subscriptions before charging their Payment Methods. Primal Queen LLC is a limited liability company that sells beef organ vitamins and nutritional supplements primarily aimed at women's health. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinllp.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM 140 Broadway, 46th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com RICHEMONT NORTH: Abdullah Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH ABDULLAH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RICHEMONT NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and CARTIER, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-09144 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 23, 2025) alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant surreptitiously installs and operates tracking software on the Website without providing users with adequate notice or obtaining their informed consent. The software is intentionally deployed to accomplish Defendant's commercial objectives, including identity resolution, targeted advertising, and the monetization of consumer data. The Defendant enables third-party technologies, that function as unlawful pen registers and/or trap and trace devices, to capture detailed information about users' electronic communications such as Internet Protocol ("IP") addresses, session data, and clickstream activity in real time. These tools operate covertly and without judicial authorization, violating the CIPA, alleges the suit. Richemont North America Inc. manufactures luxury goods. The Company provides wholesale distribution of jewelry, precious stones and metals, costume jewelry, watches, clocks, and silverware. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Daniel S. Guerra, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com dguerra@bursor.com - and - Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC 40729 Village Dr., Suite 8 - 1989 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 Email: rc@rosscornelllaw.com ROMAN AND WILLIAMS: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROMAN AND WILLIAMS GUILD NY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08785 (S.D.N.Y., October 23, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.rwguild.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on May 6, 2025, to access Defendant's website from his home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase a piece of furniture from the Defendant's collection. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the piece of furniture, that Plaintiff wished to acquire from the website, says the suit. Roman and Williams Guild NY, LLC operates the website that serves as an architecture and design practice.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com RRH ENERGY: Court Dismisses "Savada" Under First-to-File Rule ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Elias Savada, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RRH Energy Services, LLC, Spring Energy RRH, LLC, and Richmond Road Holdings, LLC, Delaware limited liability companies, KIWI Energy NY, LLC, a New York limited liability company, Stephen Eskridge, Donald Chessman, Richard Booth, Michael Lordi, and Lisa Hawkins, individuals, PALMCO Administration, LLC, d/b/a Indra Energy, PALMCO Power MD, LLC, d/b/a Indra Power, PALMCO Energy MD, LLC, d/b/a Indra Energy, Defendants, Civil Action No. RDB-25-1156 (D. Md.), Senior District Judge Richard D. Bennett of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted the Indra Defendants' motion to dismiss under the first-to-file rule. In this putative consumer protection class action, Plaintiff sued various energy companies, a holding company which is parent to a subset of the energy companies, and certain corporate officers of the holding company, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227, and the Maryland Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law Sections 14-3201 to 14-3202. The suit claimed that Defendant made or had others make on their behalf unsolicited, spoofed telemarketing calls which deceptively marketed Defendant's services. Based on these identical claims, Defendant PalmCo Administration, LLC, PalmCo Power MD, LLC, and PalmCo Energy MD, LLC (collectively, the Indra Defendants), moved to dismiss or stay the case under the first-to-file rule. The Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 and Section 1367. The core factual allegation in Spring Energy, Indra, and this case relates to deceptive telemarketing. Specifically, the allegation is that Defendant made or hired others to make illegal and deceptive telemarketing phone calls to Plaintiff, the other putative class members here, and the plaintiffs in the related cases, in violation of federal and Maryland law. On February 8, 2023, Robert Nock brought a putative class action against Spring Energy RRH, LLC, RRH Energy Services, LLC, and Richmond Road Holdings, LLC, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging receipt of unsolicited telemarketing calls violating the TCPA and corresponding Maryland law. Discovery closed on November 15, 2024. The defendants moved for summary judgment on February 5, 2025. That motion was fully briefed as of May 7, 2025. Two days later, on May 9, Nock moved to have Spring Energy transferred to this Court. The Southern District of New York granted that transfer order on July 24, 2025. Spring Energy is now pending in this Court. On March 5, 2024, Robert Nock filed a second putative class action alleging violations of the TCPA and corresponding Maryland law. This time, Nock sued PalmCo Administration, LLC, d/b/a Indra Energy, and PalmCo Power MD, LLC, d/b/a Indra Energy. That case is pending before this Court. On April 7, 2025, more than two years after filing Spring Energy and a year after filing Indra, the plaintiff's counsel in those cases brought this additional putative class action, again under the TCPA and corresponding Maryland law. Just as in Spring Energy and Indra, the core factual allegation in this case is that Defendant made or hired others to make deceptive telephone calls to market their products. Plaintiff asserted that his allegations in this case partly overlap with the Spring Energy and Indra. The Court found that is an understatement. The Defendant in this case combines the defendants from those two cases; the only new Defendant in this case are certain corporate officers of one of the Spring Energy defendants. On June 20, the Indra Defendants filed their motion to dismiss under the first-filed rule. The first-to-file rule is a common law principle of comity which says that a first or prior filed action should be permitted to proceed to the exclusion of another subsequently filed. When applicable, the rule allows federal district courts, in their discretion, to handle the issue by transferring, consolidating, staying, or dismissing the duplicative proceeding. The Indra Defendants argued that Plaintiff's lawsuit is duplicative of both Spring Energy and Indra and asked the Court to dismiss or stay the case. Plaintiff, together with Robert Nock, the putative class representative in both Spring Energy and Indra, filed a response in opposition, which argued that consolidation of the three cases, not dismissal or stay, would be the proper remedy. The Indra Defendants filed a reply, which argued, first, that consolidation would prejudice Defendant, who until this case began have been defending lawsuits by Robert Nock separately. They argued that, if the cases were consolidated, they would be prejudiced by Plaintiff and Nock having access to both sets of discovery. They also argued that consolidation would mean redoing discovery already undertaken separately in Spring Energy and Indra. The decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to transfer Spring Energy to this Court clearly supports a dismissal of this case under the first-to-file rule. The Court applied the first-to-file rule when the two competing actions are substantively the same or sufficiently similar to come within the ambit of the principle. Three factors guided that analysis: (1) the chronology of the filings; (2) the similarity of the parties involved; and (3) the similarity of the issues at stake. When a district court confirms that the first-to-file rule applies, it may in its discretion consolidate, stay, dismiss, or transfer the second case. The rule is to be applied in an equitable, case-by-case manner. All three factors weighed in favor of the rule's application here. Chronologically, this case undoubtedly follows Spring Energy and Indra. It was filed more than two years after Spring Energy and more than a year after Indra. This first factor weighed in favor of applying the first-to-file rule. There is also substantial similarity between the parties. Plaintiff, as the Southern District of New York explained in its decision to transfer Indra to this Court, qualifies as an unnamed putative class member in both Spring Energy and Indra. Likewise, Nock qualifies as an unnamed putative class member in this action. As noted above, Defendant here are essentially a combination of the defendants from Spring Energy and Indra. The only new Defendant here are certain corporate officers of Richmond Road Holdings, LLC, a defendant in the Spring Energy case. Though the plaintiff class in this case might indeed have ended up being different from the plaintiff classes in Spring Energy or Indra, the parties are still very similar overall. This weighed in favor of applying the first-to-file rule. Finally, there is substantial similarity of the issues in the three cases. Spring Energy, Indra, and this case each sue their respective defendants under the TCPA and its corresponding Maryland law; the three cases are identical in this respect. Each case concerns the same basic conduct, alleged deceptive telephone marketing calls made by Defendant themselves or by their agents. This third factor also weighed in favor of applying the rule. Therefore, because each factor weighed in favor of the first-to-file rule's application, the Court applied it. Given the highly duplicative nature of this case compared to Spring Energy and Indra, dismissal of this redundant action is proper. The Southern District of New York noted that the overlap between the three cases is self-evident; this case essentially incorporates both of Nock's actions. Plaintiff is already a putative class member in Spring Energy and Indra. Judicial economy is clearly served in the dismissal of this case. Accordingly, the Court granted the Indra Defendants' motion to dismiss under the first-to-file rule. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dirv5D from PacerMonitor.com SALESLOFT INC: Faces Newbery Suit Over Compromised Clients' Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- JORGE NEWBERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SALESLOFT, INC. and APPFOLIO, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06045-ELR (N.D. Ga., October 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within the systems of AppFolio, Inc., following a data breach between August 8 to August 18, 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Salesloft, Inc. is a software company based in Atlanta, Georgia. AppFolio, Inc. is also a software company based in Santa Barbara, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Casondra Turner, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (771) 772-3086 Email: cturner@milberg.com - and - Jonathan T. Deters, Esq. Spencer D. Campbell, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 Email: jdeters@msdlegal.com scampbell@msdlegal.com - and - Marc E. Dann, Esq. DANNLAW 15000 Madison Avenue Lakewood, OH 44107 Telephone: (216) 373-0539 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 Email: notices@dannlaw.com SBC WASTE: Underpays Company Drivers, Granados Says --------------------------------------------------- JAVIER GRANADOS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SBC WASTE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12915 (N.D. Il., October 23, 2025) is a collective and class action complaint to recover overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the state laws of Illinois. According to the complaint, SBC Waste provides waste collection, recycling, and disposal services to commercial, industrial, and residential customers throughout Illinois. To provide its services, SBC Waste employed (and continues to employ) numerous hourly, non-exempt Drivers--including Plaintiff and the individuals that make up the putative collective and class. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Granados was employed by SBC Waste as a Driver in Illinois from approximately May 2018 until April 2024. During their respective employment with SBC Waste, Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members typically worked five days a week, and approximately 10 to 12 hours per day. SBC Waste knew Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members did not take a meal break each day because they did not indicate they took one in the route sheet(s); they informed their supervisors they regularly did not take a meal break; and they were monitored through GPS tracking of their vehicles and video surveillance of the interior cabins of the vehicles. Nevertheless, SBC Waste automatically deducts a 30-minute meal-period from the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members' daily time even though they regularly performed compensable work (and continue to perform) "off the clock" through their respective meal-period breaks. Plaintiff Granados did not receive compensation for all hours worked or the correct amount of overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members were also not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, adds the complaint. Plaintiff Javier Granados was employed by SBC Waste in Illinois. SBC Waste Solutions, Inc. is a full-service solid waste company headquartered in Broadview, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Anna M. Ceragioli, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 222 W. Adams St., Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312-233-1550 Facsimile: 312-233-1560 E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com aceragioli@stephanzouras.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com SOZAI BROOKLYN: Jones Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SOZAI BROOKLYN, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08787 (S.D.N.Y., October 23, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website -- www.sozainyc.com -- to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on May 31, 2025, to access Defendant's Website from his home but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online content and services. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff Clay Lee Jones is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Sozai Brooklyn, LLC operates the website www.sozainyc.com which featured items such as sushi rolls, rice bowls, and other traditional Japanese items from the Defendant's restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com STATE FARM: Threatens Driver's License Suspension, Mayshack Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC MAYSHACK, ERICA MAYSHACK AND ARIEL LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, WILBER AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. d/b/a WILBER GROUP and T.L. THOMPSON & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-01587 (W.D. La., October 22, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act Act, and unjust enrichment under Louisiana Law. The case arises from the Defendants' action of unlawfully threatening with suspension the driver's license of Louisiana vehicle owners and operators or have actually had their driver's license suspended in order to force them to make monetary payments. According to the complaint, the scheme involves unlawfully, unjustly and abusively using the State's authority to force the Plaintiffs into onerous payment obligations by threatening and/or causing suspension of the Plaintiffs' drivers licenses even though they have not been adjudged at fault for an accident or any claimed damage or injury. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful practices, the Plaintiffs and the Class suffered economic harm. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is an insurance company in Louisiana. Wilber and Associates, PC, doing business as Wilber Group, is a debt collection company based in Louisiana. T.L. Thompson & Associates, Inc. is a debt collection company based in Louisiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles E. Tabor, Esq. Thomas G. Hathaway, Esq. Marshall O. Johnston, Esq. CHARLES E. TABOR ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC 2106 Fairfield Avenue Shreveport, LA 71104 Telephone: (318) 963-0953 Facsimile: (318) 582-1245 Email: service@charlestaborlaw.com - and - Joseph A. Gregorio, Esq. 1100 Benton Road Bossier City, LA 71111 Telephone: (318) 747-0384 Facsimile: (318) 746-5222 Email: joe@bossiercitylawyer.com STYLECRAFT LLC: Mancilla Sues Over Clippers and Trimmers' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------- JAVIER MANCILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STYLECRAFT, LLC and GAMMA+ NA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-12949 (N.D. Ill., October 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of State Consumer Fraud Acts and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act. This is a class action lawsuit regarding Defendants' manufacturing, distribution, advertising, marketing, labeling, and sale of StyleCraft Clippers and Trimmers that are sold nationwide and marketed as, among other things, "Developed in USA," "Engineered in USA," and "Designed in USA." StyleCraft admits that some of its products are made in China, but falsely claims that products such as the Instinct X Clipper and Saber Trimmer were developed or designed in the U.S.A. These claims are intended to appeal to consumers' patriotism and preference for supporting American-made Products, but they are blatantly untrue, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members would not have bought the Products or would have paid less for them had they known the truth -- that they were conceived, designed, developed, and engineered in China, the suit asserts. StyleCraft, LLC is a beauty and grooming tool company based in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. Daniel Tomascik, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce DeLeon Suite 205 - #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com tomascik@laukaitislaw.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: Elwood Sues Over Defective Countertop Ovens ------------------------------------------------------------- BLAKE ELWOOD and TERRY MERRIFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SUNBEAM PRODUCTS INC. Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06062-AT (N.D. Ga., October 23, 2025) is a consumer class action arising out of the Defendant's conduct of manufacturing and selling defective Oster French Door Countertop Ovens, which were recalled on September 25, 2025, due to a risk that the oven's doors can unexpectedly close, posing a burn hazard to consumers. According to the complaint, the product is defective due to the spring system used to open and close the doors, which can cause the oven doors to quickly swing shut without notice or prompting by the user. The Defendant provided no warning of the defect, and Plaintiffs would not have purchased said item if they had known of the defect, says the suit. The complaint alleges that the Defendant's failure to disclose the defect at the time of sale and its refusal to assume responsibility for the resulting effects constitutes consumer deception, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and breach of warranties. The Plaintiffs and the Class would not have purchased the products, or would have paid significantly less, had they known of the Defect and limited recourse available. Sunbeam Products, Inc. is an American company founded in 1897 that has produced electric home appliances under the Sunbeam name since 1910.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andre R. Belanger, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: andre.belanger@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com TEKNIPLEX INC: Court Consolidates Data Breach Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------------- In the consolidated cases captioned as Donald Keene, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tekniplex, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 25-cv-5584; C.H., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by his parent and guardian, Brittny Keene, Plaintiff, v. Tekniplex, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 25-cv-5621; James Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tekniplex, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 25-cv-5623; Kenneth Peckinpaugh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tekniplex, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 25-cv-5650; Andrew Holmstrom, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tekniplex, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 25-cv-5713; and Robert Beck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tekniplex, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 25-cv-5722 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Chad F. Kenney of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the Plaintiffs' motions to consolidate these putative class actions and appoint interim co-lead class counsel. The Court also appointed Mr. Grunfeld, Mr. Edelson, Mr. Johns, Mr. Ferich, and their respective firms as Interim Co-Lead Counsel. Upon consideration of the Rule 23(g)(1)(A) factors and Rule 23(g)(4), the Court found that Plaintiffs' proposed counsel -- Mr. Grunfeld, Mr. Edelson, Mr. Johns, Mr. Ferich, and their respective firms -- are qualified to serve as interim co-lead counsel. Plaintiffs' motions stated that the proposed counsel have investigated facts relating to the data breach, communicated with persons potentially impacted by the breach, and retained clients. All four attorneys have extensive experience litigating class actions involving data privacy, including in this district, and therefore appear familiar with the applicable law. Proposed counsel represented that they are committed to advancing the interests of the putative class and will expend the resources necessary to do so. For the foregoing reasons, proposed counsel are well situated to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class pursuant to Rule 23(g)(4). A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kL0de3 from PacerMonitor.com UNITED SURGICAL: Venue in "Janosky" Transferred to N.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Dara Janosky, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. United Surgical Partners International, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 25-68-DLB-CJS (E.D. Ky.), Judge David L. Bunning of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky granted the Defendant's Motion to Change Venue and ordered transfer of this putative class action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. This action arises out of a benefits plan issued by the Defendant. The Defendant, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas, is a leading ambulatory surgery platform that owns and operates, at present, 551 medical/surgical facilities in 37 states. Out of those 551 facilities, 108 are located in Texas and none are located in Kentucky. The Defendant employs approximately 16,870 workers at its medical/surgical facilities and offers those who work full-time health and welfare benefit plans. The plans offered by the Defendant are subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The specific plan at issue includes a wellness program designed to encourage employees to make healthy lifestyle choices. This program includes a tobacco surcharge which is a flat monthly surcharge issued against employees who self-identify that they or a family member included on their plan are tobacco users. The surcharge may be removed if the employee participates in a smoking cessation program. The Plaintiff, a previous employee of the Defendant, currently resides in Boone County, Kentucky, and lived there during the time she worked for the Defendant. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from August 2019 to around September 2020, where she worked at one of the Defendant's Ohio facilities. While employed, the Plaintiff, a self-identified tobacco user, paid the tobacco surcharge of roughly $50 a month. On May 22, 2025, the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against the Defendant. The Plaintiff alleges that the tobacco surcharge is a breach of fiduciary duty under 29 U.S.C. Section 1104 and a violation of ERISA's anti-discrimination provision under 29 U.S.C. Section 1182. On August 4, 2025, the Defendant filed its Motion to Transfer Venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1406(a), or in the alternative, 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). The Defendant moved to transfer this case to the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1406(a), on the grounds that none of the ERISA statute's bases for venue have been satisfied. In the alternative, the Defendant argued the case should be transferred under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) for convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The Plaintiff disagreed, arguing that ERISA's venue provisions have been satisfied, and even if they have not, it is not in the best interest to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Texas. The Court first addressed whether transfer was proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1406(a). ERISA includes a special venue provision, codified at 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(e)(2), which states that where an action under this subchapter is brought in a district court of the United States, it may be brought in the district where the plan is administered, where the breach took place, or where a defendant resides or may be found. Courts have interpreted this provision as requiring a plaintiff to satisfy only one of the listed criteria. The Court determined that the Defendant's plan is administered in Texas. At the time the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant, the plan was administered from the Defendant's headquarters in the Northern District of Texas in Addison, Texas. Today, the plan is administered from Dallas, Texas. Moreover, the insurance companies the Defendant partners with to coordinate the plan are also located in Dallas, Texas. Therefore, the Plaintiff has not satisfied the first basis for venue under ERISA. Regarding where the breach took place, the Court found that because the Plaintiff is not alleging that her contract rights under the plan were breached, but rather, that the plan itself violates the law, the breach occurred where those decisions took place—Dallas, Texas. The Court held that when the plaintiff alleges only a breach of fiduciary duty, rather than make a claim for benefits due, the breach is considered to have occurred where defendants acted or failed to act as their duties required. The Court also concluded that the Defendant neither resides nor may be found in Kentucky within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(e)(2). For ERISA venue purposes, a defendant resides in any district in which its minimum contacts would support the exercise of personal jurisdiction. The Defendant is incorporated under Delaware law and has its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. Therefore, Kentucky courts do not have general jurisdiction over the Defendant. The Court further found that the Defendant is not subject to specific jurisdiction in Kentucky. The Court determined that the facts proposed by the Plaintiff do not meet the minimum contacts standard. The fact that the Defendant operates surgical centers in bordering states, such that physicians located in Indiana are accessible to patients in Kentucky is the exact type of unilateral activity by another party the Supreme Court has rejected. Accordingly, because none of the ERISA statute's bases for venue have been satisfied, transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1406(a) is warranted. The Court also addressed whether transfer was proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). The Court applied the nine-factor test employed in the Eastern District of Kentucky: (1) the convenience of witnesses; (2) the location of relevant documents and relative ease of access to sources of proof; (3) the convenience of the parties; (4) the locus of operative facts; (5) the availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses; (6) the relative means of the parties; (7) the forum's familiarity with the governing law; (8) the weight accorded the plaintiff's choice of forum; and (9) trial efficiency and the interests of justice, based on the totality of the circumstances. The Court found that the convenience of witnesses factor weighs in favor of transfer. The Defendant has shown that most material witnesses reside in the Dallas area. The non-party witnesses all reside in Texas. Additionally, any employee witness who administers the health plan resides in the greater Dallas area, where the Defendant is headquartered. Finally, any class member who may be a witness in this case is more likely to reside in Dallas as opposed to Kentucky, given that 108 of the Defendant's facilities and 7,386 employees are located in Texas, while there are no facilities at all located in the Commonwealth. Regarding the location of relevant documents, the Court found this factor weighs slightly in favor of transfer. Any evidence, while likely stored electronically, would be housed at the headquarters in Dallas, Texas. The Court found the convenience of the parties factor neutral. While the Plaintiff's claim that dozens of putative class members live in Kentucky is speculative at best, the Court acknowledged that the Defendant is a sophisticated corporation and that the Plaintiff has attested that the transfer would financially burden her. However, both the Defendant, as well as a significant number of employees likely to be members of the putative class, reside in the Northern District of Texas. The locus of operative facts factor favors transfer. The Court agreed with the reasoning that the locus of the operative facts did not occur in the Eastern District of Kentucky. Given that the Plaintiff's allegations rest on the basis that the plan itself violates federal regulations, the operative facts—the plan as a whole—occurred in the Northern District of Texas where the plan is administered. The availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses factor weighs in favor of transfer. This Court would not be able to compel the non-party witnesses who reside in Texas. According to the Court the relative means of the parties factor tips only slightly in the Plaintiff's favor. In this case, the Defendant is a sophisticated company, identifying itself as the leading ambulatory surgery platform in the United States. Even when the Plaintiff's means are mitigated due to the case being brought as a proposed nationwide class action, the Defendant is still likely to have a significant financial advantage over any plaintiff, or class of plaintiffs. The forum's familiarity with the governing law factor is neutral. The Plaintiff has only alleged claims under various federal statutes. As such, all federal courts are presumed to be equally familiar with federal law. The weight accorded to the Plaintiff's choice of forum factor is neutral. The Plaintiff is currently the only identified class member who resides in Kentucky, the alleged events relevant to the case took place in Texas, and this is a putative class action in which the named plaintiffs seek to represent a national class of persons or sub-classes of persons across states that do not include Kentucky. Finally, trial efficiency and the interests of justice factor favors transfer. Texas seems to have a stronger interest, given that it is home to the Defendant's residence, numerous potential class members' residences, and the operative facts and evidence. Moreover, in the interest of efficiency, the Northern District of Texas prevents possible delays in the future, given the availability of witnesses, counsel, and parties, including putative class members. The Court concluded that the convenience of witness, location of documents, locus of operative facts, availability to compel witnesses, and trial efficiency weigh in favor of the Defendant. The relative means of the parties weighs slightly in favor of the Plaintiff. The remaining factors are neutral. In sum, the relevant factors to be considered weigh heavily in favor of transferring this case to the Northern District of Texas. The Defendant has properly demonstrated that the factors weigh in its favor, satisfying its burden pursuant to Section 1404(a). For the reasons discussed, the Court granted the Defendant's Motion to Change Venue and ordered that this matter be transferred to the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x2nTKc from PacerMonitor.com X CREAMERY: Hernandez Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. X CREAMERY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05926 (E.D.N.Y., October 23, 2025) is a civil rights action complaint against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.amplehills.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on March 31, 2025, to access Defendant's Website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff visited Defendant's website to purchase The Jazmin Ice Cream Cake. Despite Plaintiff's efforts, however, Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping experience. The Plaintiff asserts that the Website contains access barriers that include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Defendant X CREAMERY, INC. is a company that owns and operates the Website renowned for its premium small-batch ice cream.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Faces 3,600 Exposure Claims as of Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 3M Company, as of September 30, 2025, is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent approximately 3,600 individual claimants, compared to approximately 3,500 individual claimants with actions pending as of December 31, 2024, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JNixPY ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carrier Global Reports $218MM Total Liabilities ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carrier Global Corporation has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos allegedly integrated into certain Carrier products or business premises, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company's total asbestos liabilities for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025 was $218 million. A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been dismissed without payment or have been covered in full or in part by insurance or other forms of indemnity. Additional cases were litigated and settled without any insurance reimbursement. The amounts involved in asbestos-related claims were not material individually or in the aggregate in any period. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rPE0Tx ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Faces 758 New PI Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Flowserve Corporation, for three months ended September 30, 2025, has reported 758 new personal injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple defendants in state and federal courts. While the overall number of asbestos-related claims in which we or our predecessors have been named has generally declined in recent years, the number of new claims may fluctuate or increase between periods, and there can be no assurance that total outstanding claims will continue to decline, or that the average cost per claim to us will not further increase. Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any such products were encapsulated and used as internal components of process equipment, and we do not believe that significant emission of asbestos fibers occurred during the use of this equipment." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UTs8EL ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Electric Has $2.1BB Reserves at Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- General Electric Company has reported total reserves related to environmental remediation and worker exposure claims of $2,118 million and $2,003 million at September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company stated: "Our operations involve or have involved the use, disposal and cleanup of substances regulated under environmental protection laws, including activities for a variety of matters related to GE businesses that have been discontinued or exited. We record reserves for obligations for ongoing and future environmental remediation activities, such as the Housatonic River cleanup, and for additional liabilities we expect to incur in connection with previously remediated sites, such as natural resource damages for the Hudson River where GE completed dredging in 2019. Additionally, like many other industrial companies, we and our subsidiaries are defendants in various lawsuits related to alleged exposure by workers and others to asbestos or other hazardous materials. Liabilities for environmental remediation and worker exposure claims exclude possible insurance recoveries. It is reasonably possible that our exposure will exceed amounts accrued. However, due to uncertainties about the status of laws, regulations, technology and information related to individual sites and worker exposure lawsuits, such amounts are not reasonably estimable. Total reserves related to environmental remediation and worker exposure claims were $2,118 million and $2,003 million at September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024 respectively." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ImDaQN ASBESTOS UPDATE: Genuine Parts Has 3,000 Lawsuits as of Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Genuine Parts Company has 3,000 pending asbestos lawsuits as of September 30, 2025, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The amount accrued for pending and future claims was $222 million as of September 30, 2025, which represented our best estimate of the liability within our calculated range of $207 million to $296 million, discounted using a discount rate of 4.16%. The amount accrued for pending and future claims was $256 million as of December 31, 2024, which represented our best estimate of the liability within our calculated range of $219 million to $313 million, discounted using a discount rate of 4.58%. Our undiscounted product liability was $300 million and $336 million as of September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively. There have been no significant developments to the information presented in our 2024 Annual Report on Form 10-K with respect to litigation or commitments and contingencies. "We hold insurance policies that cover some asbestos settlements and defense costs. Annually, we conduct an insurance exhaustion study to model expected recoveries for pending and future claims, and we adjust the insurance receivable balance to reflect the present value of these recoveries. Our receivable for estimated insurance recoveries related to pending and future claims was $39 million and $44 million as of September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=losVrR ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has $1.5BB Liabilities as of March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc., as of March 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, has reported total asbestos-related liabilities of $1,526 million and $1,482 million, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F6buyw ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Tech Has 840 Open Cases as of Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Minerals Technologies Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries are among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for alleged exposure to asbestos-contaminated talc products sold by the its subsidiary BMI Oldco Inc. (f/k/a Barretts Minerals Inc.), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of September 28, 2025, we had 840 open cases related to certain talc products previously sold by Oldco, which is an increase in volume from previous years." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vs7WlT ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trimas Corp. Has 565 Pending Cases as of Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Trimas Corporation as of September 30, 2025, was a party to 565 pending cases involving an aggregate of 5,033 claimants primarily alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by its former Lamons division and certain other related subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical, refining and exploration industries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company is subject to other claims and litigation in the ordinary course of business, but does not believe that any such claim or litigation will have a material adverse effect on its financial position and results of operations or cash flows. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g0g6Qq ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Reports $726MM Liability at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporation has total asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims and defense and processing costs of $726 million at September 30, 2025 ($791 million at December 31, 2024), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "At September 30, 2025, approximately 26 percent of the recorded claim liability related to pending claims and approximately 74 percent related to future claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NWIGHF ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westinghouse Air Brake Defends Exposure Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Claims have been filed against Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation and certain of its affiliates in various jurisdictions across the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The vast majority of the claims are submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity, or to non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the asbestos-containing products at issue. We cannot, however, assure that all of these claims will be fully covered by insurance, or that the indemnitors or insurers will remain financially viable. Our ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to these claims, as is the case with other pending litigation, cannot be estimated. A limited number of claims are not covered by insurance, nor are they subject to indemnity from non-affiliated parties. Management believes that the costs of the Company's asbestos-related cases will not be material to the Company’s overall financial position, results of operations and cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FlRW4H ********* 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 ***