251110.mbx

251110.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, November 10, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 224 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Atherton Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ALLEVIATE FINANCIAL: Deis Sues Over Unfair Credit Repair Services AMAZON.COM INC: Yim Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington ANCIENT BRANDS: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ANTONE MONIZ: Mass. Court Certifies Immigration Detention Class APPLE AMERICAN: Underpays Company Employees, Howse Says AT&T INC: Faces Keidan Suit Over Unwanted Telephone Calls ATTYX NEW YORK: Martinez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages BJH HOLDING: Faces Curl Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info BJH HOLDING: Weston Balks at Failure to Secure Personal Info BOWTECH INC: Diaz Suit Transferred to D. Colorado CHICK-N-SMASH CORP: Gomez Suit Transferred to S.D. New York COGNISM INC: Galli Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts CVS HEALTH: McFee Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty DAIRY FARMERS: Buhl Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info DOCGO INC: Faces Castaldi Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. EIGHT ORANGES: Settlement in "Mangahas" Has Final Court OK EVENFLO COMPANY: Toney Sues Over Car Seat Headset Choking Hazard GENERAL MOTORS: Hernandez Files Suit Over Defective Vehicle HEALTH CARE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Knick Says HEALTH CARE: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Bryan Says HEALTH CARE: Johnson Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data JACK'S FAMILY: Cravey Sues Over Inadequate Computer Security System JACK'S FAMILY: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Wilson Says JAMES HARDIE: Laborers' District Sues Over Share Price Drop JUSTANSWER LLC: Larson Sues Over Automatic Subscription Renewal JW PARK: Martinez Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages KANAWHA BOARD: Class Certification Denied in IDEA Suit KIYONNA CLOTHING: Bowman Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind LATCH INC: Court Streamlines Briefing in "Schwartz" Class Suit LIGHTOPIA LLC: Walker Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind LUNA INNOVATIONS: $7.3MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 17 MASTERBRAND INC: Topete Suit Removed to C.D. California MAY LINDSTROM: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Davis Says MONEY FACTOR: Faces Walker Suit Over Illegal Gambling Platform MOTILITY SOFTWARE: Koller Sues Over Inadequate Data Security NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Grants Notice Protocol in "Brantmeier" OWLET INC: $3.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 6 PELLA WINDOWS: Newell Sues Over Unwanted Telephone Calls PILOT TRAVEL: Faces Pimentel Suit Over TCPA Violation PLAYTIKA LTD: Wright Sues Over Illegal Online Social Casino PROSPER FUNDING: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Huff Suit Says RAAC MANAGEMENT: $7.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 11 SALESLOFT INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Jugo Says SELECT PORTFOLIO: Bid for Class Cert in Harnett Due July 10, 2026 SHENZHEN CHARMAST: Yim Class Suit Transferred to W.D. Wash. STAKE CENTER: Underpays Fiber Locator Technicians, Michael Says TOYOTA OF DALLAS: Court Denies Class Certification in "Mitchell" TRANS UNION: Court Grants Motions to Seal Personal Data in "Brooks" UNFI GROCERS: Williams Suit Removed to E.D. California UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Underpays Patient Care Employees, Polson Says WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Guillen Suit Removed to C.D. California WWEX FRANCHISE: Sisson Suit Removed to N.D. Texas YELLOW SOCIAL INTERACTIVE: Gardner Sues Over Gambling Act Breach ********* 3M COMPANY: Atherton Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Aaron Atherton, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01854 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Oct. 27, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-13153-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven Davis, esq. TORHOERMAN LAW LLC 210 South Main Street Edwardsville, IL 62025 Phone: (618) 656-4400 Fax: (618) 656-4401 Email: sdavis@thlawyer.com ALLEVIATE FINANCIAL: Deis Sues Over Unfair Credit Repair Services ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL LYNN DEIS, Plaintiff v. ALLEVIATE FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS LLC; SET FORTH, INC.; SENTRY LEGAL PLAN LLC; and PRIORITY PLUS FINANCIAL LLC; Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-10239 (C.D. Cal., October 24, 2025) alleges that Defendants violated: (i) the Credit Repair Organizations Act; (ii) California's Unfair Competition Law; (iii) California's Fair Debt Settlement Practices Act; and as a result is also liable for (iv) negligence, (v) negligent misrepresentation, and (vi) intentional misrepresentation. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants operate an elaborate scheme to defraud debtors, and preys on consumers drowning in credit card and unsecured debt. The Defendants target consumers like Plaintiff, consumers with significant debts for which they are unable to make minimum payments or who will soon be unable to make such payments and those who have an outstanding concerns with their credit, credit history, or credit worthiness. The Plaintiff further asserts that each Defendant was acting jointly with each other Defendant in an illegal scheme to profit off of an illegal credit repair scheme and that each Defendant was the agent of the others and therefore can be held responsible and is vicariously liable for the conduct of all other Defendants and vice versa. He seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from Defendants' unfair, deceptive, and abusive business practices in their provision of credit repair services. Alleviate Financial Solutions LLC is a financial services company with principal place of business in Irvine, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com - and - Mark J. Green, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: mark@kazlg.com AMAZON.COM INC: Yim Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Barbara Yim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amazon.com Inc., Shenzhen Charmast Technology Co., Ltd., Case No. 3:25-cv-04782-EMC was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Oct. 27, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02103-BAT to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Amazon.com, Inc., doing business as Amazon -- https://www.amazon.com/ -- is an American multinational technology company engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andre Robert Belanger, Esq. ANDRE BELANGER 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (803) 222-2222 Email: andre.belanger@poulinwilley.com - and - John Christian Bohren, Esq. YANNI LAW APC PO Box 12174 San Diego, CA 92112 Phone: (619) 433-2803 Fax: (800) 867-6779 Email: yanni@bohrenlaw.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN, WILLEY, ANASTOPOULO LLC 32 Ann St. Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 216-9440 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer J. Nagle, Esq. K&L GATES LLP (MA) One Congress St., Ste. 2900 BOSTON, MA 02114 Phone: (617) 951-9197 Email: jennifer.nagle@klgates.com - and - Kevin S. Asfour, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 552-5000 Fax: (310) 552-5001 Email: kevin.asfour@klgates.com - and - Loly G. Tor, Esq. K&L GATES LLP One Newark Center, Tenth Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 848-4026 Fax: (973) 848-4001 Email: loly.tor@klgates.com - and - Robert W. Sparkes, III, Esq. K&L GATES LLP (MA) One Congress St., Ste. 2900 Boston, MA 02114 Phone: (617) 951-9134 Fax: (617) 261-3175 Email: robert.sparkes@klgates.com ANCIENT BRANDS: Lopez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANCIENT BRANDS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08808 (S.D.N.Y., October 24, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://ancientnutrition.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on July 21, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Multi Collagen Protein 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. The Plaintiff 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 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. Ancient Brands, LLC operates the website that offers dietary supplements & vitamins.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ANTONE MONIZ: Mass. Court Certifies Immigration Detention Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jose Arnulfo Guerrero Orellana, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Petitioner-Plaintiff, v. Antone Moniz, Superintendent, Plymouth County Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents-Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-cv-12664-PBS (D. Mass.), Judge Patti B. Saris of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts allowed Petitioner's motion for class certification. The Court certified a class of noncitizens subject to mandatory detention under the government's interpretation of 8 U.S.C. Section 1225(b)(2)(A) who are either detained within Massachusetts or subject to the jurisdiction of an immigration court in Massachusetts. Petitioner Jose Arnulfo Guerrero Orellana, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States without inspection in June 2013. He lives in Massachusetts with his wife and their one-year-old U.S. citizen daughter. He has no criminal record and has worked to support himself and his family, most recently as a landscaper. On September 18, 2025, Guerrero Orellana was taken into ICE custody during a traffic stop. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security served Guerrero Orellana with a Form I-200 arrest warrant and a notice to appear charging him as inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) for being present in the United States without admission or parole and under 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(a)(7)(A)(i) for lacking valid entry documents. Guerrero Orellana intends to apply for cancellation of removal during his removal proceedings. The government asserted that it had been detaining Guerrero Orellana as an applicant for admission under Section 1225(b)(2)(A). Based on the government's position, Guerrero Orellana was subject to mandatory detention and ineligible for a bond hearing before an immigration judge under the BIA's decision in Matter of Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216, 220 (B.I.A. 2025). On October 3, 2025, the Court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the government to release Guerrero Orellana unless it provided him with a bond hearing. The Court concluded that Guerrero Orellana was likely to succeed in demonstrating that the government lacked statutory authority to detain him without a bond hearing under Section 1225(b)(A)(2). On October 9, 2025, an immigration judge held a hearing and ordered Guerrero Orellana released on bond. Class Certification Analysis The Court addressed whether the proposed class satisfies the requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The proposed class consists of all people who are arrested or detained in Massachusetts, or are detained in a geographical area over which an Immigration Court located in Massachusetts is the administrative control court, where: (a) the person is not in any Expedited Removal process under 8 U.S.C. Section 1225(b)(1); (b) for the person's most recent entry into the United States, the government has not alleged that the person was admitted into the United States and has not alleged that person was paroled into the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(d)(5)(A) at the time of entry; (c) the person does not meet the criteria for mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(c); (d) the person is not subject to post-final order detention under 8 U.S.C. Section 1231; and (e) the person is not a person whose most recent arrest occurred at the border while they were arriving in the United States and has been continuously detained thereafter. The Court addressed several threshold issues raised by the government. Regarding mootness, the Court found that Guerrero Orellana's individual claim is not fully resolved at this stage because his release resulted from the issuance of only preliminary relief. The Court stated that he faces the threat of re-arrest and mandatory detention should the Court eventually decline to issue permanent relief. The government argued that 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(e)(1)(B) bars the Court from certifying a class. The Court concluded that Section 1252(e)(3)(A) does not limit judicial review of Guerrero Orellana's claim that the government is unlawfully subjecting him and the other class members to mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) because the mandatory detention provision does not apply at all. The Court also rejected the government's argument that habeas claims are not suitable for class treatment. The Court noted that the broad consensus among the circuit courts is that representative actions akin to a class action may be brought in habeas corpus proceedings. Based on this uniform circuit precedent, the Court concluded that habeas claims are suitable for class treatment if the standards of Rule 23 are met. The Court found that the proposed class satisfies the numerosity requirement. In fiscal year 2024, DHS charged over 33,000 noncitizens in Massachusetts immigration courts as removable on the basis that they entered the country without inspection. Additionally, during a period of less than two weeks between September 30 and October 10, 2025, judges in this district granted habeas relief to almost forty noncitizens based on the same argument that Guerrero Orellana has raised. For commonality, the Court determined that the proposed class shares a common question capable of class-wide resolution because its members are all detained without a bond hearing pursuant to the same allegedly unlawful government policy. The Court stated that the proposed class presents the following common question of law: does Section 1225(b)(2)(A) authorize mandatory detention without a bond hearing during removal proceedings for noncitizens who entered the United States without inspection, were arrested while residing inside the country, and who are not subject to the expedited removal process under Section 1225(b)(1), parole revocation under Section 1182(d)(5)(A), or mandatory detention under Section 1226(c)? The Court found that the typicality requirement was satisfied because the claims of Guerrero Orellana and the absent class members arise from the same governmental policy subjecting certain noncitizens to mandatory detention without a bond hearing during their removal proceedings. Guerrero Orellana presses the same statutory claim on behalf of himself and the class as a whole. For adequacy, the government argued that Guerrero Orellana is not an adequate class representative because he seeks a form of individual relief that 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(f)(1) prohibits the Court from awarding on a class-wide basis. The Court concluded that the fact that Section 1252(f)(1) bars class-wide injunctive relief does not create a fundamental conflict between Guerrero Orellana and the absent class members. The Court found that the proposed class satisfies Rule 23(b)(2). The government has adopted a uniform interpretation of Section 1225(b)(2)(A) that imposes detention without a bond hearing during removal proceedings on all noncitizens who entered the United States without inspection, are apprehended while residing inside the country, and are not subject to parole revocation under Section 1182(d)(5)(A) or mandatory detention under Section 1225(b)(1) or Section 1226(c). The government argued that Section 1252(f)(1) bars the class-wide declaratory relief that Guerrero Orellana seeks. The Court noted that the First Circuit has held that Section 1252(f)(1) does not prohibit such class-wide declaratory relief and stated that this Court is bound by the First Circuit's holding. Accordingly, the Court allowed Guerrero Orellana's motion for class certification. The Court appointed Foley Hoag LLP; the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Massachusetts, Inc.; the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation; the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire; the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine Foundation; Araujo & Fisher, LLC; and the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program as class counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e4lc1a from PacerMonitor.com APPLE AMERICAN: Underpays Company Employees, Howse Says ------------------------------------------------------- JAMES HOWSE, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE AMERICAN GROUP II, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03344-RBJ (D. Colo., October 23, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for failing to provide mandatory rest breaks to its employees for each four hours of work. The complaint relates that the Defendant operates 22 Applebee's restaurants in Colorado. The Plaintiff worked as an hourly, non-exempt, cook for Defendant in Colorado from approximately June 2024 to October 2025. He was paid an hourly rate of $15 per hour and he was scheduled to work eight hour shifts for Defendant. However, Defendant did not provide Plaintiff with a rest break for every four hours that he worked and did not provide him with an extra 10 minutes of compensation for each rest break Plaintiff was not provided. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and the Class Members have been uncompensated or under-compensated in weeks when they worked less than 40 hours, weeks when they worked more than 40 hours, workdays when they worked more than 12 hours, and shifts when they worked more than 12 hours as a result of Defendant's common policies and practices which failed to comply with Colorado law. The Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled to ten minutes of wages for each rest period that they failed to receive, says the suit. Plaintiff James Howse worked for Defendant as an hourly paid cook during the class period in Colorado. Defendant Apple American Group II, LLC is a foreign limited liability company that operates a franchise of Applebee's restaurants in Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty FOTY LAW GROUP, P.C. 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@fotylawgroup.com - and - Anthony J. Lazzaro THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: 216-696-5000 Facsimile: 216-696-7005 E-mail: anthony@lazzarolaw.com AT&T INC: Faces Keidan Suit Over Unwanted Telephone Calls --------------------------------------------------------- ELSA KEIDAN and GARRICK S. KEIDAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AT&T, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-24913 (S.D. Fla., October 24, 2025) is a putative class action arising out of the Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Federal Communications Commission regulations promulgated thereunder as well as the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. To promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited telephone call marketing to consumers in violation of the TCPA and FTSA. Specifically, the Defendant repeatedly violated the laws by (1) sending automated telephone calls to Plaintiffs and the proposed Class without having prior express written consent; (2) sending telephone calls to Plaintiffs and the Class members while their residential phone numbers were registered on the national do-not call registry without their prior express written consent; and (3) by continuing to send telephone calls to Plaintiffs and the Class members even after they had clearly requested to not receive further calls. Through this action, the Plaintiffs seek an award of statutory damages to Plaintiffs and the Class, as well as injunctive relief ending Defendant's unlawful conduct that has resulted in intrusion into Plaintiffs' and the Class' peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiffs and the Class members. AT&T Inc. is a U.S.-based multinational telecommunications and technology company that provides wireless, broadband, and digital entertainment services globally.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. LEHRMAN LAW 622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (754) 778-9660 E-mail: seth@lehrmanlaw.com - and - Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (954) 889-3359 Facsimile: (954) 889-5913 E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com ATTYX NEW YORK: Martinez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- JESSEL MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. ATTYX NEW YORK LLC d/b/a ATTYX, and BASTION SUPPLY CO, LLC d/b/a BASTION SUPPLY, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05973 (E.D.N.Y., October 24, 2025) is a civil action for damages and other redress based upon willful violations that Defendants committed of Plaintiff's rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a roofing technician from February 2023 until May 22, 2025. Throughout his employment, the Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, in excess of 40 hours each workweek, or virtually each week. Yet in exchange, the Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat daily rate that did not change regardless of how many hours he worked in a day or in a week, says the suit. ATTYX NEW YORK LLC and BASTION SUPPLY CO, LLC are two New York limited liability companies that together, as a single enterprise, operate a roofing, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, and solar installation business based out of Nassau County, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edgar M. Rivera, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 BJH HOLDING: Faces Curl Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------- LAJADA CURL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BJH HOLDING CORP and JACK'S FAMILY RESTAURANTS, LP, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08839 (S.D.N.Y., October 24, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendants with sensitive personally identifiable information including names and Social Security numbers that was impacted in a data breach that Defendants publicly disclosed on October 21, 2025. The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' private information secure. The sensitive nature of the data exposed through the data breach signifies that Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered irreparable harm. The Plaintiffs and Class Members have lost the ability to control their private information and are subject to an increased risk of identity theft, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendants for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of confidence. BJH Holding Corp is a holding corporation and the parent company of Jack's, a quick service chain restaurant that has over 250 locations in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 475-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com BJH HOLDING: Weston Balks at Failure to Secure Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------ YETTA WESTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BJH HOLDING CORP and JACK'S FAMILY RESTAURANTS, LP, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08861 (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendants with sensitive personally identifiable information, including names and Social Security numbers that was impacted in a data breach that Defendants publicly disclosed on October 21, 2025. According to the complaint, the Defendants, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the data breach, failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiffs and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendants for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of confidence. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the data breach and who remain at risk due to Defendants' inadequate data security practices. BJH is a holding corporation and the parent company of Jack's. Jack's is a quick service chain restaurant that has over 250 locations in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven Sukert, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: sukert@kolawyers.com - and - Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Rd Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com BOWTECH INC: Diaz Suit Transferred to D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Samuel Hernandez Diaz, Lane Poziviak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BOWTECH INC.; HOYT ARCHERY, INC.; MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.; Precision Shooting Equipment, Inc.; BPS Direct LLC doing business as: Bass Pro Shops; Cabela's LLC; DICKS SPORTING GOODS; JAYS SPORTING GOODS, INC doing business as: JAYS SPORTING GOODS; KINSEYS OUTDOORS, INC.; LANCASTER ARCHERY SUPPLY, INC.; ARCHERY TRADE ASSOCIATION, INC.; TRACKSTREET, INC.; NeuIntel LLC doing business as: PRICESPIDER HOLDINGS, formerly known as: Oris Intelligence, Case No. 5:25-cv-04277 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on Oct. 27, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03419-PAB-TPO to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Bowtech Archery -- https://bowtecharchery.com/ -- offers premium archery equipment.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laura Killian Mummert, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY P.C. 161 Washington Street, Suite 1025 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (484) 342-0700 Fax: (484) 342-0701 The Defendants are represented by: Christine Grace Scherer, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 333 West Wolf Point Plaza Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 862-2000 CHICK-N-SMASH CORP: Gomez Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Deivi Gomez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Chick-N-Smash, Corp., Norman Alsaidi, Case No. 1:25-cv-04255 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Oct. 27, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-08889-GHW to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Chick 'n' Smash offers Miami style Smash Burgers, Nashville style American Chicken burgers, and New York style fried Chicken Wings, with house-made sauces.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amit Kumar, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO 108 West 39th Street, Suite 602 New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 583-7400 Fax: (212) 583-7401 Email: akumar@cafaroesq.com COGNISM INC: Galli Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christopher Galli, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. COGNISM INC., Case No. 2584CV02688-BLS2 was removed from the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts, to the United States District Court for District of Massachusetts on Oct. 27, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-13153. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of himself and all putative Class Members for violations of the Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Godkin, Esq. James E. Kruzer, Esq. BIRNBAUM & GODKIN, LLP 1 Marina Park Drive, Suite 1410 Boston, MA 02210 Email: godkin@birnbaumgodkin.com kruzer@birnbaumgodkin.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Matthew A. Giradi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Email: jmarchese@bursor.com mgiradi@bursor.com The Defendants are represented by: Matthew D. Gorman, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation One Boston Place, 201 Washington St., Suite 200 Boston, MA 02109 Phone: (212) 497-7786 Email: mgorman@wsgr.com - and - Michael S. Sommer, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 999-5800 Email: msommer@wsgr.com CVS HEALTH: McFee Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------- JOHN MCFEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, CVS HEALTH CORPORATION BENEFIT PLANS COMMITTEE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, and JOHN DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05984 (E.D.N.Y., October 24, 2025) is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the CVS Health Future Fund 401(k) Plan's fiduciaries, which include the Defendants, for breaches of their fiduciary duties. To safeguard plan participants and beneficiaries, ERISA imposes strict fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence upon employers and other plan fiduciaries. The Plaintiff alleges that during the putative Class Period, Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined under ERISA, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to Plaintiff, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, failing to control the Plan's administrative and recordkeeping costs paid to Vanguard, the Plan's recordkeeper. The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence. The Defendants' actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars, says the suit. Plaintiff McFee resides in Staten Island, New York and was employed by Defendant CVS Health Corporation for approximately 14 years as a staff pharmacist. During his employment, he participated in the Plan paying the RKA costs associated with his Plan account and was subject to the alleged excessive RKA costs. CVS Health Corp. is an American healthcare company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Caroline C. Donovan, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the America, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com cdonovan@bursor.com DAIRY FARMERS: Buhl Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- JASON BUHL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02614-HLT-GEB (D. Kan., October 24, 2025) is a class action arising from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about its current and former employees and members, 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. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class' PII in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the complaint. Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. is a dairy farm cooperative with approximately 4,809 dairy farms across the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. Lucy McShane, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 Facsimile: (816) 332-6295 E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.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 DOCGO INC: Faces Castaldi Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE CASTALDI, individually and for others similarly situated v. DOCGO INC. d/b/a AMBULNZ BY DOCGO, Case No. 1:25-cv-08842 (S.D.N.Y., October 24, 2025) is a class and collective action brought by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid wages and other damages owed by the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated, and is violating federal and state laws by employing the Class Members for workweeks in excess of 40 hours without paying them overtime wages at rates not less than one and a half times their regular rates of pay -- based on all remuneration -- for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Defendant further violated laws by depriving all wages earned, due, and owing to Plaintiff and Class members on their regular paydays and/or following the termination of their employment, says the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an emergency medical technician from October 2022 through December 2023. DocGo Inc., d/b/a Ambulnz by DocGo, provides standby medical transportation services and first aid services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com EIGHT ORANGES: Settlement in "Mangahas" Has Final Court OK ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case Captioned as Jessy Mangahas, and Pithchaya Wohlfahrt, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Eight Oranges Inc. DBA The Bao; Chibaola, Inc. DBA Uluh; Joanne Hong Bao, individually, and Richard Lam, individually, Defendants, Case No. 22 Civ. 04150 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y.) Judge Lewis J. Liman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement on October 30, 2025. The Court approved the Settlement Agreement and its terms -- except the reversion provision as specified in the Court's Opinion and Order dated October 30, 2025 00 and found that the settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and not a product of collusion. The Court certified the proposed class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) for settlement purposes and found that the Class meets the requirements for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3). Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP, meets the adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a)(4) and the Court confirms its prior order appointing F&S as Class Counsel and the Named Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives. The Court approved service awards for Named Plaintiffs Jessy Mangahas and Pithchaya Wohlfahrt and the Opt-In Plaintiffs. The Court granted Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $583,333.33, which is 33.3% of the settlement, and approved $35,000.00 in administrative costs to Rust Consulting. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=phswYC from PacerMonitor.com EVENFLO COMPANY: Toney Sues Over Car Seat Headset Choking Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- SAMANTHA TONEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01240-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, October 23, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated who purchased certain Evenflo Revolve Slim 360 car seats. On September 29, 2025, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a recall on certain car seats manufactured by Evenflo, for a choke hazard pertaining to its car seat headrest. Through marketing and sale, the Defendants represented that the Products are safe for children. The corporate website proclaims "Family First, Always" as a theme for reassuring consumers that they provide safe products. They further brag about "Safety Innovation" and "Thoughtful Design" on the website "About Page." The Plaintiff and consumers do not know, and did not have a reason to know, that the Products purchased carried the potential for choking hazards. Consumers expect the products they purchased to be safe, especially products aimed towards children. Because Plaintiff and all consumers purchased the worthless and dangerous Products, which they purchased under the presumption that the Products were safe, they have suffered losses, says the suit. Evenflo Company, Inc. manufactures markets infant and juvenile products. The Company offers juvenile travel systems, car seats, strollers, child carriers, saucers, gates, jumpers, monitors, and oral development items. Evenflo serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew S. Baker, Esq. THE BAKER LAW GROUP 89 E Nationwide Blvd. 2nd Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 228-1882 E-mail: andrew.baker@bakerlawgroup.ne - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: pauldoolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com GENERAL MOTORS: Hernandez Files Suit Over Defective Vehicle ----------------------------------------------------------- JUAN ALBERTO HERNANDEZ v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-1703 (W.D. Tex., October 23, 2025) is a civil action complaint against the Defendant for breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranty of merchantability pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Tex. Bus. & Com. Code. The complaint relates that on December 19, 2024, the Plaintiff purchased a 2025 Chevrolet 1500 from Capitol Chevrolet Motors, LLC located in Austin, Texas bearing the Vehicle Identification Number 2GCPACED9S1123327 (hereinafter the "Vehicle"). Factors influencing the Plaintiff's selection of the Vehicle included the make, model, performance, features, and options that were advertised and marketed by the Defendant, reliance that that Vehicle would be free from defects and a safe and reliable form of transportation, and that all vehicle components and systems would function as intended. In consideration for the purchase of said vehicle, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff several warranties, guarantees, affirmations or undertakings with respect to the material or workmanship of the vehicle and remedial action in the event the vehicle fails to meet the promised specifications or is defective in materials and workmanship. The complaint alleges that at the time of delivery, the Vehicle was defective in materials and workmanship, with such latent manufacturing defects being discovered within the warranty periods. The defects included a defective electrical system and engine. As a result of these manufacturing defects and non-conformities, the Plaintiff tendered the Vehicle to a repair facility that was authorized by the Defendant to perform repairs in accordance with the Defendant's express written warranty. The repair facility, Capitol Chevrolet 6200 South IH 35 Austin, TX 78745-4531 attempted to repair these manufacturing defects and non-conformities from March 10, 2025, through September 18, 2025. As a result of these manufacturing defects and non-conformities, the Vehicle was inconvenient, unreliable, unsafe, useless, unavailable and out of service for an excessive number of days, asserts the complaint. The manufacturing defects and non-conformities identified herein, existed at the time the Vehicle left the Defendant's control and are defects with materials and workmanship and present reliability and safety concerns for the Plaintiff with regards to the Vehicle. The vehicle remains in a defective, unrepaired and unreliable state and is substantially impaired, it adds. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks all damages, including attorney fees and costs, allowed by law, says the suit. Juan Alberto Hernandez is a consumer residing in Buda, Texas. General Motors, LLC is engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of motor vehicles and related equipment and services. It is also in the business of marketing, supplying and selling written warranties to the public at large through a system of authorized dealerships, including the dealership where the Plaintiff purchased the Vehicle and tendered the Vehicle for repairs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin R. Duck, Esq. DUCK LAW FIRM, L.L.C. 5040 Ambassador Caffery Parkway Suite 200 Lafayette, LA 70508 Telephone: (337) 406-1144 Facsimile: (337) 406-1050 HEALTH CARE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Knick Says ------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA KNICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION dba BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MONTANA, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 6:25-cv-00075-TJC (D. Mont., October 24, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to protect sensitive personal information and the sensitive personal information of others similarly situated. From October 21, 2024, to January 13, 2025, BCBS, through a third party vendor, suffered a data security incident that compromised the personal identifying information and protected health information of over 462,000 Montanans. Information that was compromised likely includes names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, phone numbers, billing and medical data, treatment and diagnosis codes, provider names, and claims amounts. The ramifications of BCBS's failure to keep the affected members' sensitive personal information secure are long-lasting and severe. As a result of BCBS's failures to prevent the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer damages, says the suit. Health Care Service Corporation is an Illinois-based health insurer, third-party administrator, and benefit provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Domenic Cossi, Esq. Maxwell E. Kirchhoff, Esq. Adam M. Shaw, Esq. WESTERN JUSTICE ASSOCIATES, PLLC 303 West Mendenhall, Suite 1 Bozeman, MT 59715 Telephone: (406) 587-1900 Facsimile: (406) 587-1901 E-mail: domenic@westernjusticelaw.com max@westernjusticelaw.com adam@westernjusticelaw.com info@westernjusticelaw.com HEALTH CARE: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Bryan Says --------------------------------------------------------- SHANNON CLINT BRYAN, CHARLES MCDONALD and WILSON WYLLIE individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION dba BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MONTANA, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. CV-25-00099-TJC (D. Mont., October 23, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendants for failure to protect sensitive personal information and the sensitive personal information of others similarly situated. According to the complaint, as a condition of their use of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana, Inc.'s ("BCBS") services, Plaintiffs and Class Members were required to provide their personal identifying information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI"). The Plaintiffs and Class Members enrolled and became members of BCBS in exchange for services, as well as BCBS's promises to protect their protected PII and PHI from unauthorized disclosure. The complaint relates that from November 2024 to March 2025, BCBS, through a third-party vendor, suffered a data security incident that compromised the PII and PHI of approximately 462,000 Montanans. Information that was compromised likely includes names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, phone numbers, billing and medical data, treatment and diagnosis codes, provider names, and claims amounts. BCBS conducted an investigation into the data breach to review the affected data. This review was completed on September 23, 2025. In early October 2025, BCBS notified the Montana State Auditor's Office about the data breach. Despite being aware of the breach for many months, BCBS has yet to notify its members of the data breach. As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiffs and the Class Members have suffered actual damages, including fraud and identity theft, time and expenses related to monitoring their financial accounts for fraudulent activity, an increased and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft, the lost value of their personal information, and other economic and non-economic harm. They are therefore entitled to legal relief against the Defendant, including recovery of actual damages, treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and such further relief as the Court may deem proper, says the suit. Individual Plaintiffs Bryan, McDonald, Wyllie and the Class Members are victims of the Defendant's inadequate cybersecurity. Defendant BCBS is an Illinois-based health insurer, third-party administrator, and benefit provider. Doe Defendants 1 through 10 are vendors, agents, subsidiaries, sisters, or related entities of BCBS who may be determined through discovery to bear responsibility for the actions described herein.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Domenic Cossi, Esq. Maxwell E. Kirchhoff, Esq. Adam M. Shaw, Esq. WESTERN JUSTICE ASSOCIATES, PLLC 303 West Mendenhall, Suite 1 Bozeman, MT 59715 Telephone: (406) 587-1900 Facsimile: (406) 587-1901 E-mail: domenic@westernjusticelaw.com max@westernjusticelaw.com adam@westernjusticelaw.com info@westernjusticelaw.com HEALTH CARE: Johnson Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- CLARENCE JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, A MUTUAL LEGAL RESERVE COMPANY d/b/a BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MONTANA, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13036 (N.D. Ill., October 24, 2025) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information about its current and former patients, including Plaintiff. The Defendant disclosed the PII/PHI of Class Members to a third-party vendor "Conduent" that experienced a data breach. The Defendant failed its duties when its inadequate security practices caused the data breach. In other words, the Defendant's negligence is evidenced by its failure to prevent the Data Breach and stop cybercriminals from accessing the PII/PHI. Thus, the Defendant caused widespread injury and monetary damages, says the suit. Health Care Service Corporation is the largest health insurer in Montana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com JACK'S FAMILY: Cravey Sues Over Inadequate Computer Security System ------------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA CRAVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JACK'S FAMILY RESTAURANTS, LP and BJH HOLDINGS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01861-SGC (N.D. Ala., October 24, 2025) seeks redress for Defendants' unlawful, willful and wanton failure to protect the personal identifiable information of likely thousands of individuals that was exposed in a major data breach of Defendants' network in violation of their legal obligations. The Plaintiff and members of the class are current or former employees of the Defendants. In order to obtain employment, the Defendants required Plaintiff and the Class Members to provide their PII, including their names, dates of birth, email addresses, addresses, Social Security numbers, financial account information, medical information, and other personal information. On July 24, 2025, an unknown actor gained access to Defendants' inadequately protected computer systems. As a result, potentially thousands of individuals, including Plaintiff and the Class Members, have had their personal identifiable information, asserts the complaint. The Defendants betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and the other Class Members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their personal identifiable information and thereby enabling cybercriminals to steal such valuable and sensitive information, alleges the suit. Jack's Family Restaurants, LP is an American fast food restaurant chain, headquartered and based in Birmingham, Alabama.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. Austin B. Whitten, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 E-mail: jonm@pittmandutton.com austinw@pittmandutton.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 Central Express Way, Ste. 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com JACK'S FAMILY: Fails to Protect Sensitive Data, Wilson Says ----------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER WILSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JACK'S FAMILY RESTAURANT, LP, and BJH HOLDING CORP., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08900 (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2025) is a class action arising from Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, the Defendants store a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information about its current and former employees, including Plaintiff but Defendants lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach. The cybercriminals were able to breach Defendants' systems because Defendants failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' sensitive information. In short, the Defendants' failures placed the Class' sensitive information in a vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, the suit alleges. Jack's Family Restaurant, LP is a fast-food restaurant chain with over 250 locations in Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia and Mississippi.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 475-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com JAMES HARDIE: Laborers' District Sues Over Share Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------- LABORERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL AND CONTRACTORS' PENSION FUND OF OHIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAMES HARDIE INDUSTRIES PLC., AARON ERTER, and RACHEL WILSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-13018 (N.D. Ill., October 24, 2025) is a securities fraud class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all those who purchased, or otherwise acquired, James Hardie common stock (previously American Depositary Shares until their conversion to common stock on July 1, 2025) during the period from May 20, 2025 through August 18, 2025, inclusive, pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material facts. In particular, despite starting to see North America Fiber Cement customers destocking inventory in April and early May 2025, the Defendants made numerous statements on May 20 and 21, 2025 falsely assuring investors that the segment remained strong despite the challenging market environment and expressly denying that inventory destocking was occurring. Investors remained unaware that sales in James Hardie's largest business segment were experiencing inventory loading by channel partners, with the hallmarks of fraudulent channel stuffing, and not sustainable customer demand as represented. On August 19, 2025, James Hardie shocked investors by belatedly disclosing that sales in North America Fiber Cement declined by 12% due to customer destocking first discovered by Defendants in "April through May." On this news, the price of James Hardie's common stock dropped by over 34%, or $9.79 per share, from a closing price of $28.43 per share on August 18, 2025 to $18.64 per share on August 20, 2025. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common stock, Plaintiff and other Class Members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. James Hardie provides exterior home and outdoor living solutions and markets itself as the number one producer of high-performance fiber cement building solutions in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. CARROLL SHAMBERG LLC 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (872) 215-6205 E-mail: katrina@csclassactions.com - and - Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Jacob A. Walker, Esq. Sarah E. Delaney, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: jeff@blockleviton.com jake@blockleviton.com sarah@blockleviton.com JUSTANSWER LLC: Larson Sues Over Automatic Subscription Renewal --------------------------------------------------------------- LINDA LARSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JUSTANSWER LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-10174 (C.D. Cal., October 23, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for violation of the Electronic Transfer Funds Act, among other things. JustAnswer, wholly owned by JustAnswer Holding Corporation, operates a website, www.justanswer.com, on which users can ask "experts" to answer questions on a wide variety of topics, including, among others, medical, legal, tax, veterinary, computer, and electrical. Once someone lands on the website, the user is alleged to be automatically subjected to an arbitration agreement without even knowing it and without consenting to it. The complaint relates that around February 14, 2022 (Valentine's Day), Larson contacted JustAnswer while attempting to resolve charges related to her son's Microsoft video game. Rather than providing assistance, JustAnswer itself began charging her a recurring monthly fee of approximately $46.00. At first, Larson did not realize that JustAnswer was the source of these charges, as the billing descriptor misleadingly appeared as "Tech Geek," causing her to believe the charges were associated with Geek Squad or another legitimate technology service provider. When Larson eventually realized her mistake and discovered that the charges were in fact coming from JustAnswer, she spent years trying to have the recurring charges removed. She contacted her bank, researched the charges, and attempted to reach JustAnswer, but was repeatedly unsuccessful in obtaining cancellation or relief due to JustAnswer's deliberately confusing billing practices. Ultimately, Larson was not able to obtain relief or have the automatic monthly charge stopped until the spring of 2025, more than three years after JustAnswer first began debiting her account. During this time, she paid JustAnswer more than $1,000.00 in unauthorized recurring fees. The Plaintiff alleges that she never knowingly agreed to a monthly membership or subscription with JustAnswer, and she received no clear, conspicuous, or affirmative disclosures regarding any such automatic renewal program. Had she been informed, she would never have assented to recurring charges. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed this complaint against the Defendant for unfair and deceptive act or practice of (a) misrepresenting material facts in selling any good or service with a negative-option feature; (b) failing to disclose material facts prior to obtaining consumer's billing information and charging customers; (c) failing to obtain unambiguous affirmative consent to the negative option feature prior to charging Plaintiff and the proposed Class for it; and (d) failing to provide Plaintiff and the proposed Class with simple cancellation mechanisms to immediately halt all recurring charges. Plaintiff Linda Larson is a resident and citizen of the State of Texas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR. 6057 Metropolitan Plz. Los Angeles, CA 90036 Telephone: 314-662-2836 E-mail: casey@lawofficeflynn.com - and - Joseph Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: 513-381-2333 Facsimile: 513-766-9011 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com JW PARK: Martinez Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------- JOSE E. RAMOS MARTINEZ c/o Sutter & Terpak, PLLC, Plaintiff v. SOOK H. PARK, SANG H. PARK, and JW PARK, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01858 (E.D. Va., October 23, 2025) is a complaint against the Defendant, jointly and severally, for refusing to pay Plaintiff overtime in violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint relates that the Defendants are in the business of owning and operating the Restaurant, and the corporate ownership and structure of the Defendants are unknown but are believed to be interrelated. The Defendants were Plaintiff's supervisor, set Plaintiff's work schedule and hours, and determined Plaintiff's rate and method of pay. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff worked as a cook at the Restaurant beginning in 2018. Defendants paid Plaintiff $3,200 per month. His last day working at the Restaurant was September 18, 2025. Plaintiff worked at the Restaurant Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. On Mondays and Wednesdays, he worked from 10:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. On Fridays and Saturdays, he worked from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. On Sunday he worked from 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Aside from a 90-minute break between lunch and dinner service each shift, he did not take an uninterrupted break lasting longer than 20 minutes. Typically, with this break after lunch, he worked 80 hours each week. However, he was paid no overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages, plus an equal amount in liquidated damages, interest (both pre- and post-judgment), reasonable attorney's fees, the costs of this action, and any other and further relief this Court deems appropriate. Plaintiff Jose E. Ramos Martinez was an employee of the Defendants and a resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Sook H. Park and Sang H. Park are the owners and operators of a restaurant t/a Ariake Japanese Restaurant. JW Park, Inc. is a Virginia corporation owned and operated by Defendants Sook H. Park and Sang H. Park.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Sutter, Esq. SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC 7540A Little River Turnpike Annandale, VA 22003 Telephone: 703-256-1800 Facsimile: 703-991- 6116 E-mail: matt@sutterandterpak.com KANAWHA BOARD: Class Certification Denied in IDEA Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as G.T., by his parents Michelle and Jamie T. on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The Board of Education of the County of Kanawha, Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-00057 (S.D. W. Va.), Judge Irene C Berger of the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Charleston Division, denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a Memorandum Opinion and Order filed on October 28, 2025. The Plaintiffs, G.T., K.M., and The Arc of West Virginia, allege that the Defendant, the Board of Education of the County of Kanawha (referred to as the Board or KCS, for Kanawha County Schools), violates the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. Section 1400 et seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), 29 U.S.C. Section 794, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12131 et seq., and the West Virginia Human Rights Act, W. Va. Code Section 5-11-1 et seq. (now codified at W. Va. Code Section 16B-17-1 et seq.), by failing to adequately support students with disabilities. G.T. and K.M. are students with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), although the Plaintiffs have not focused on K.M. following remand. The Arc of West Virginia is a not-for-profit membership organization focused on disability rights, particularly for those with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The Plaintiffs initiated this action with a Class Action Complaint filed on January 24, 2020, which was amended on April 10, 2020. The Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The Defendant appealed the initial class certification, and the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion on September 5, 2024, finding that the class failed to satisfy Rule 23(a)(2)'s commonality prerequisite. The court explained that to meet the commonality prerequisite for class certification, plaintiffs in an IDEA case like this one must identify a uniformly applied, official policy of the school district, or an unofficial yet well-defined practice, that drives the alleged violation. The Fourth Circuit noted that members of the class were at different stages of the special education process, with allegations that KCS both failed to identify students who needed behavioral supports and failed to provide adequate supports to students who had been identified as requiring behavioral supports. The court found that the allegations related to multiple failures, rather than a single policy or practice impacting all class members. Following remand, the Plaintiffs filed their renewed motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs now seek to certify a class defined as: All Kanawha County School students identified by Kanawha County School District as having disabilities and needing behavior supports but who are not being provided with appropriate therapies to build social skills and self-regulation. The Plaintiffs contend that their revised proposed class satisfies the Fourth Circuit's guidance on class certification in this case. They argue that they have identified a systematic practice of failing to provide students with disabilities with appropriate therapies to build social skills and self-regulation, which in turn prevents those children from making appropriate behavioral and academic progress. The Plaintiffs contend that the proposed class consists of more than 300 students with disabilities identified as needing behavior supports in IEPs, as well as hundreds of students with disabilities identified as needing behavior supports with Section 504 plans. The Plaintiffs assert the following common factual and legal questions: 1. Whether KCS has systematically failed to provide class members with appropriate therapies to build social skills and self-regulation; 2. Whether such therapies are required related services under IDEA and/or Section 504; 3. Whether the failure to provide appropriate therapies to build social skills and self-regulation is or has resulted in a denial of FAPE (Free Appropriate Public Education); 4. Whether the District's systematic failure to provide the class with appropriate therapies to build social skills and self-regulation violates the IDEA, and/or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; 5. Whether the District's systematic failure to provide the class with appropriate therapies to build social skills and self-regulation violates Title II of the ADA; and 6. Whether the District's systematic failure to provide the class with appropriate therapies to build social skills and self-regulation violates the West Virginia Human Rights Act. The Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs' proposed class fails for many of the reasons cited by the Fourth Circuit in finding that certification of the previous proposed class constituted an abuse of discretion. It contends that there is no uniformly applied policy or well-defined practice harming students with disabilities at KCS. It argues that social skills and self-regulation services encompass a broad range of services, provided in a range of settings, based on an individualized assessment of each student, and a failure to provide a particular service to a particular student could result from a broad range of causes. Whether a student receives appropriate therapies hinges on a host of individual factors that defy ready or objective determination, in the Defendant's view. In addition to arguing that the proposed class does not meet the requirements set forth by the Fourth Circuit, KCS asserts that its policies and practices comply with all applicable laws and emphasizes that it implemented an improvement plan related to reducing disciplinary disparities for students with disabilities in the years since this case was filed. The Court finds that the shortcomings remain in the new proposed class. The Plaintiffs' new proposed class definition addresses some specific concerns identified by the Fourth Circuit. Where the previous class definition included all students with disabilities who need behavior supports, the current class includes only students who have been identified by KCS as having disabilities and needing behavior supports, eliminating claims or potential relief relating to the Defendant's process for identifying students in need of behavioral supports. However, the overarching problem with the previous class was that the alleged harm of individual class members stemmed from different alleged policy failures. The Plaintiffs have not identified specific common policy failures that have resulted in the alleged inadequate provision of therapies to build social skills and self-regulation. The Plaintiffs concede that the specific therapies and supports will vary based on the individual needs of the students. They do not point to a particular point at which KCS fails to comply with the law, resulting in the alleged failures to provide adequate therapies. Instead, they again cite a collection of failures and inadequacies involving various personnel in various roles. The Fourth Circuit also outlined the common questions proposed by the Plaintiffs as to the previous proposed class, finding that they were not common to all class members' claims. The new proposed class references therapies to build social skills and self-regulation rather than behavior supports, but the asserted common questions are similar to those the Fourth Circuit rejected. The first question, whether KCS has systematically failed to provide class members with appropriate therapies to build social skills and self-regulation, addresses only whether the purported class members suffer the same harm, not whether their harm stemmed from the same policy failure. Next, the Plaintiffs ask whether such therapies are required related services under IDEA and/or Section 504, a purely legal question that does not demonstrate commonality. The third question asks whether the failure to provide appropriate therapies to build social skills and self-regulation is or has resulted in denial of FAPE (Free Appropriate Public Education). That question cannot be readily answered on a class-wide basis but would instead require investigation of each purported class member's individual IDEA claim. There is no claim here that KCS is not completing some specific step of the special education process or has failed to hire personnel to fulfill a particular role or function or has a specific consistent practice impacting all students with disabilities in the same way. Fundamentally, a class definition that rests on whether students are receiving appropriate therapies incorporates individualized claims. One student may not receive appropriate therapies to build social skills because her classroom teacher neglects to provide skills training included in the curriculum in her IEP, while another student is not receiving appropriate self-regulation therapies because KCS has not coordinated with outside professionals to provide specialized therapy based on the student's particular disability. A single injunction will not solve both problems. The Fourth Circuit's opinion provides clear guidance about what claims will, and what claims will not, satisfy the Rule 23(a)(2) commonality requirement in an IDEA case. The new class definition proposed by the Plaintiffs does not present common claims under the analysis required by the Fourth Circuit opinion remanding this case. Therefore, the Court finds that the motion for class certification must be denied. The Court ordered that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification be denied. A copy of the court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vO3Jg0 from PacerMonitor.com KIYONNA CLOTHING: Bowman Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- TANISIA BOWMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kiyonna Clothing, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13022 (N.D. Ill., October 24, 2025) is a civil rights action against Kiyonna Clothing for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, Kiyonna.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. On August 25, 2025, the Plaintiff was looking for a new dress for an upcoming event she was invited to. During her search online, she discovered the Defendant's website. She decided to browse the product collection with the intention of making a purchase. However, she encountered accessibility issues while navigating the website. An automatic pop-up window appeared without being announced by her screen reader, preventing her from understanding its content or dismissing it independently. The access barriers have caused Kiyonna.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Kiyonna Clothing's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Kiyonna Clothing, Inc. operates the website that offers dresses for various occasions including wedding guests, cocktails, casual outings, evening events, wraps, lace and maxi styles, partywear, and bridal attire, along with jumpsuits and separates.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (716) 281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law LATCH INC: Court Streamlines Briefing in "Schwartz" Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Scott Schwartz, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Latch, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 23-27-WCB, Judge William C. Bryson of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware ordered that class counsel may file a single omnibus brief in support of the motion for final approval and the fee and expense motion not to exceed 35 pages. Upon reviewing the record, the court confirmed class action status, referencing the preliminary approval of the settlement. Accordingly, the court approved the stipulation, which streamlines briefing and sets clear rules for submissions. The ruling focuses on the briefing procedure and not on substantive claims or the settlement’s merits. OF COUNSEL: Brent B. Barriere, Esq. Jason W. Burge, Esq. Kaja S. Elmer, Esq. FISHMAN HAYGOOD LLP 201 St. Charles Avenue, 46th Floor New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 586-5252 Facsimile: (504) 586-5250 Email: bbarriere@fishmanhaygood.com Email: jburge@fishmanhaygood.com Email: kelmer@fishmanhaygood.com Peter Bradford deLeeuw, Esq. DELEEUW LAW LLC 1301 Walnut Green Road Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 274-2180 Facsimile: (302) 351-6905 Email: brad@deleeuwlaw.com OF COUNSEL: Kristin N. Murphy, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 650 Town Center Dr., 20th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 540-1235 Facsimile: (715) 755-8290 Email: kristin.murphy@lw.com Colleen C. Smith, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 12670 High Bluff Drive San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 523-3985 Facsimile: (858) 523-540 Email: colleen.smith@lw.com Counsel for Defendants: Robert L. Burns, Esq. Kyle H. Lachmund, Esq. RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER, P.A. 920 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 651-7618 Facsimile: (302) 657-7701 Email: burns@rlf.com Email: cragg@rlf.com Email: lachmund@rlf.com A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gQ9pjv from PacerMonitor.com LIGHTOPIA LLC: Walker Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- LEAH WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Lightopia, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13008 (N.D. Ill., October 24, 2025) is a civil rights action against Lightopia for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, Lightopia.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. On March 28, 2025, the Plaintiff searched Google for online stores offering "wood ceiling fans" and came across Lightopia.com. While exploring their offerings, she encountered accessibility barriers that significantly hindered her ability to complete a purchase. The navigation menu was not accessible, and the "Skip to Content" link was not implemented, which made it difficult for her to move through the page efficiently and select the desired product. As a result, the Plaintiff was unable to choose or purchase the product she wanted through Defendant's website. These access barriers have caused Lightopia.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Lightopia's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Lightopia, LLC operates the website that offers modern lighting and home decor, featuring fans, chandeliers, pendant lights, and wall sconces.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (716) 281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law LUNA INNOVATIONS: $7.3MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 17 ---------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA In re LUNA INNOVATIONS INCORPORATED SECURITIES LITIGATION Master File No. 2:24-cv-02630-CBM-KSx Judge: Hon. Consuelo Marshall SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED LUNA INNOVATIONS, INC. SECURITIES FROM MAY 16, 2022 THROUGH APRIL 19, 2024, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT IN A LAWSUIT PENDING IN FEDERAL COURT. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on February 17, 2026 at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Consuelo Marshall, United States District Judge, at the United States District Court for the Central District of California, First Street U.S. Courthouse, 350 W. 1st Street, Suite 4311, Los Angeles, CA 90012 for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated May 5, 2025, of the Action for $7,300,000 in cash should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class Members; (2) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Settlement Amount is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application by Lead Counsel and Class Counsel, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, for attorneys' fees and expenses and for an award to the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff and Class Representative George Lang should be approved; and (4) whether the proposed Judgment should be entered. The Action has been preliminarily certified as a class action for settlement purposes on behalf of all investors (individuals and entities) who purchased or acquired Luna securities from May 16, 2022 through April 19, 2024, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby. The Action asserts claims against Luna and certain individual defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A detailed description of the Action, including the parties, the claims and defenses, and other important information about your rights and options are in the detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action. Class Representative alleged that during the period between May 16, 2022, and April 19, 2024, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements in violation of Sec. 10(b) of Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sec. 20(a) of the Exchange Act, which caused the price of Luna securities to trade at artificially inflated prices. Specifically, Class Representative alleged that Defendants misled investors by failing to disclose that Luna's financial statements from May 16, 2022 to November 14, 2023 improperly recognized unearned revenue, would require restatement, and were supported by ineffective disclosure controls and procedures. Class Representative alleged that persons who purchased Luna securities during the Class Period suffered economic losses when the price of Luna securities declined as a result of a series of corrective disclosures between March 12, 2024, and April 25, 2024. During the course of the Litigation, the parties engaged a third-party mediator, Jed D. Melnick, Esq., of JAMS. After the submission of comprehensive mediation statements and other materials, the parties participated in a mediation via videoconference with Mr. Melnick on April 14, 2025. After negotiation throughout the mediation process, the Mediator issued a mediator's recommendation that the Action be settled for $7,300,000, which the Parties conditionally accepted. The Parties thereafter negotiated and executed a confidential term sheet to settle the Action, which memorialized the key terms of the Stipulation. At the Fairness Hearing, Class Counsel will request that the Court award aggregate attorneys' fees according to the terms of the retainer agreement between the Class Representative and Class Counsel. These attorney's fees are estimated to be no more than 30% of the Settlement Amount, or $2,190,000. Class members are not personally liable for any such fees or any other expenses (estimated not to exceed $150,000 for litigation expenses, and $300,000 for Notice and Administration Expenses). The net recovery for Class Members (also referred to as the Net Settlement Fund) is estimated to be at least $4,660,000 ($7,300,000 minus all of the foregoing fees and expenses). In addition, Lead Plaintiff may seek payment not to exceed $3,500 for its time and expenses incurred in representing the Class. To obtain the Notice or a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim and Release"), visit the settlement website at www.LunaInnovationsSecuritiesLitigation.com, send email to Info@LunaInnovationsSecuritiesLitigation.com or write to Luna Innovations Securities Litigation, P.O. Box 2876, Portland, OR 97208-2876. To get a payment from the Net Settlement Fund you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release by mail postmarked no later than January 16, 2026, or electronically no later than January 16, 2026,establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Failure to submit your Proof of Claim and Release by November 17, 2025, will subject your claim to possible rejection and may preclude you from receiving any payment from the settlement. If you are a Class Member, you will be bound by the settlement and any judgment entered in the Action, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim and Release. EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS - Each Settlement Class Member will be bound by all determinations and judgments in this lawsuit, whether favorable or unfavorable, unless such person or entity mails or delivers a written Request for Exclusion from the Settlement Class in accordance with all the instructions set forth in the Notice that is received or filed, not simply postmarked, on or before January 27, 2026. To object to any aspect of the settlement, including the Plan of Allocation, or the applications for attorneys' fees and expenses, you must submit a written objection in accordance with all the instructions set forth in the Notice that is received or filed, not simply postmarked, on or before January 27, 2026. If you object, but also want to be eligible for a payment from the settlement, you must still submit a timely Proof of Claim and Release. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the settlement, you may contact Class Counsel at the following address: Class Counsel Lucas E. Gilmore HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 lucasg@hbsslaw.com DATED: October 10, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MASTERBRAND INC: Topete Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Emilia Topete, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. MASTERBRAND, INC., a Delaware corporation; MASTERBRAND CABINETS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2524925 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Oct. 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02824. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts claims for: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Meal Period Violations; Rest Period Violations; Failure to Reimburse all Necessary Business Expenditures; Wage Statement Penalties; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Nader, Esq. Spencer S. Turpen, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-840-3150 Facsimile: 916-840-3159 Email: michael.nader@ogletree.com spencer.turpen@ogletree.com MAY LINDSTROM: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Davis Says ------------------------------------------------------------ NICOLE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. May Lindstrom Skin, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13007 (N.D. Ill., October 24, 2025) is a civil rights action against May Lindstrom Skin for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, www.maylindstrom.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. On July 31, 2025, the Plaintiff began searching online for skincare products made with natural ingredients and free from chemicals. During her search online, she discovered the brand May Lindstrom Skin and visited the Defendant's website. She decided to browse the product collection with the intention of making a purchase. However, she encountered accessibility issues while navigating the website. An automatic pop-up window appeared without being announced by the screen reader software, making it difficult for her to understand, interact with, or dismiss the content, says the suit. Because Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in May Lindstrom Skin's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. May Lindstrom Skin, LLC operates the website that offers a range of skincare products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Office: (844) 731-3343 Direct: (716) 281-5496 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law MONEY FACTOR: Faces Walker Suit Over Illegal Gambling Platform -------------------------------------------------------------- NATHAN WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE MONEY FACTORY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00959 (D. Utah, October 27, 2025) seeks to redress Defendant's alleged widespread violations of Utah's Gambling Act. According to the complaint, while Defendant advertises and promotes its Money Factory Gambling Platform, an online sweepstakes casino, to persons in Utah as a legitimate online business, giving it an aura of legitimacy and legality to Plaintiff and Class members, the Money Factory Gambling Platform is actually a dangerous and plainly unlawful gambling enterprise. The scheme involves illegal conduct of Defendant where it sells digital "coins" to consumers, including Plaintiff, on the Money Factory Gambling Platform -- including consumers in Utah -- and then immediately accepts those coins back (from by the consumers who purchased them) as wagers on the outcomes of the various casino-style games of chance offered on the Money Factory Gambling Platform, says the suit. The Money Factory LLC has operated and continues to operate the Money Factory Gambling Platform at www.themoneyfactory.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot O. Jackson, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 E-mail: ejackson@hedinllp.com - and - David W. Scofield, Esq. PETERS ❘ SCOFIELD A Professional Corporation 7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, UT 84093-6160 Telephone: (801) 322-2002 E-mail: dws@psplawyers.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC 140 Broadway, Fl 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com MOTILITY SOFTWARE: Koller Sues Over Inadequate Data Security ------------------------------------------------------------ PEGGY L. KOLLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOTILITY SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC. Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00776-DRC (S.D. Ohio, October 24, 2025) seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the injuries Defendant inflicted on Plaintiff and at least 766,000 others due to Defendant's egregiously inadequate data security, which resulted in the private information of Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exposed to unauthorized third parties. On August 19, 2025, Motility was able to confirm that an authorized threat actor had accessed the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members. The actual data breach occurred August 11 but it wasn't until September 29 that the Defendant announced the data breach to the public. The complaint alleges that Motility disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard private information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information. Motility's woefully inadequate data security measures made the data breach a foreseeable, and even likely, consequence of its negligence. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these injuries on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was exposed and compromised in the data breach. She brings this action against Defendant and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. Motility Software Solutions, Inc. is a U.S.-based company that supplies dealer management software to over 7,000 specialty vehicle dealerships, enabling them to oversee CRM, inventory, accounting, parts, and service scheduling from a unified platform.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert R. Sparks, Esq. STRAUSS TROY CO, LPA 150 E. Fourth St, 4th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018 Telephone: (513) 621-2120 Facsimile: (513) 241-8259 E-mail: rrsparks@strausstroy.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Grants Notice Protocol in "Brantmeier" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Reese Brantmeier and Maya Joint, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-CV-238 (M.D.N.C.), Chief District Judge Catherine C. Eagles of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina approved the jointly submitted proposed notice and notice procedures for class certification with modifications. Plaintiffs Reese Brantmeier and Maya Joint want to compete in Division I college tennis and to accept all the prize money they win by competing in non-collegiate tennis tournaments. The defendant National Collegiate Athletic Association and its member institutions impose rules that severely limit the amount of prize money current and prospective Division I tennis athletes can accept without losing their Division I eligibility. The Plaintiffs say that those rules violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and they seek injunctive relief and damages on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. The Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certified one class of persons seeking injunctive relief and another seeking damages. The injunctive class consists of all persons who, at any time between March 19, 2020, and the date of judgment in this action, (i) competed in NCAA Division I Tennis, or (ii) were ineligible to compete in NCAA Division I Tennis due to the Prize Money Rules. The damages class consists of all persons who, at any time between March 19, 2020, and the date of initial distribution of Class Notice in this matter, have voluntarily forfeited Prize Money earned in a tennis tournament, and (i) have competed in NCAA Division I Tennis, or (ii) have submitted information to the NCAA Eligibility Center. Ms. Brantmeier and Ms. Joint were appointed as class representatives, and Plaintiffs' Counsel were appointed as class counsel. The Court approved notice through a class website, emails, postcard backup, targeted advertisements, and a press release as the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances. The parties agreed to create a public website with information on the case. The emails, postcards, and advertisements providing notice of the class action will refer people to the website for additional, updated information. The website will contain the notice and important legal documents in the case. It will be run by the Class Administrator and will be updated with important orders in the case. It will also have a 1-800 number which anyone can call and leave a recorded message for a follow-up response. The Plaintiffs proposed to provide notice to all prospective student-athletes who registered with the NCAA Eligibility Center as potential student-athletes in men's or women's tennis between January 1, 2021, and August 5, 2025, and a few individuals who were entered into the eligibility center database at an earlier time and have been identified as likely members of the damages class. The Plaintiff proposed to send emails to these potential class members containing the notice. For potential class members who cannot be reached by email, Plaintiffs suggested that postcards containing a short description of the litigation and a link to the notice website be mailed to their most recent known home address. The parties agreed that it is reasonable to send the proposed notice by email and then, for those notices that are not delivered after three attempts, by postcard. The NCAA pointed out that the email and postal mail addresses in its possession are likely to be outdated for some potential class members and suggested that the Plaintiffs could obtain more current information by subpoenaing records from third parties. The Court found that this is unduly cumbersome and expensive, requiring an unreasonable effort. It is also unnecessary. While some class members may not receive personal notice, notice is not required to be perfect. The targeted advertisements, press release, and likely media attention to this class action will improve notice substantially. The Plaintiffs proposed supplementing these notices with a posting on the NCAA website, but the NCAA objected. The Court found that posting a notice about a settlement is different in kind from posting a notice about class certification where the NCAA is contesting liability on an ongoing basis. The proposed methods of notice are otherwise likely to reach large numbers of class members, and requiring the NCAA to post the notice is not necessary to provide sufficient notice. The Court approved the proposed notice with modifications. The parties were ordered to add a sentence clarifying that a class member may enter an appearance through an attorney in connection with the damages class. The Court also ordered the addition of a sentence stating that most orders important to the case will be posted on the class website. The parties were directed to ensure that any substantive orders are provided to the Notice Administrator who shall post them on the website. The Court ordered that the Notice Administrator shall send the email notices as quickly as practicable and, for any undeliverable returned emails, postcard notices no later than November 21, 2025. Opt-out letters must be postmarked no later than February 5, 2026. The Notice Administrator shall maintain a public website where the Order, the Class Certification Order, the approved Notice, and all other substantive orders shall be posted. The Notice Administrator shall issue a press release about class certification containing the relevant deadline to opt-out and the class website. The Notice Administrator shall promptly place targeted advertisements on social and digital media about certification and the opt-out deadline. The Notice Administrator shall file a report showing compliance with this order by February 19, 2026. A Copy of the court's decision dated 27th of October is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0GUVYN from PacerMonitor.com OWLET INC: $3.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 6 -------------------------------------------------------- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP and Pomerantz LLP announced proposed class action settlements on behalf of owners of Sandbridge Acquisition Corporation Common Stock and/or purchasers of Owlet, Inc. Common Stock and/or Warrants (NYSE: SBG) (NYSE: SBG.WS) (NYSE: SBG.U) (NYSE: OWLT) (OTC: OWLTW): UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MICHAEL J. BUTALA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. OWLET, INC. f/k/a SANDBRIDGE ACQUISITION CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:21-cv-09016-FLA (SSCx) Consolidated with Case No. 2:21-cv-09293-FLA (JEMx) CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: Section 10(b) Settlement Class: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Owlet, Inc. (i.e., common stock and/or warrants) between March 31, 2021 and October 4, 2021, both dates inclusive, and who were damaged thereby. Section 14(a) Settlement Class: All persons and entities that held Sandbridge Acquisition Corporation ("Sandbridge") common stock as of June 1, 2021 and were eligible to vote at Sandbridge's special meeting on July 14, 2021. Together, the Section 10(b) Settlement Class and the Section 14(a) Settlement Class are referred to herein as the "Settlement Classes." PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A PENDING CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Orders of the United States District Court for the Central District of California that the action has been provisionally certified as a class action for the purposes of settlement, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Classes by definition as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement for the Section 10(b) Class dated January 31, 2025 and the Stipulation of Settlement for the Section 14(a) Class dated January 31, 2025 and the detailed notices for each settlement. The 10(b) Class Stipulation, the 14(a) Class Stipulation, and the Notices can be viewed on the website www.strategicclaims.net/owlet. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the parties to the Action have reached proposed settlements in the amounts of $3.5 million in cash for the Section 10(b) Settlement Class and $1.75 million in cash for the Section 14(a) Settlement Class. If approved, the Settlements will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held in the Action on February 6, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. before the Honorable Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, United States District Court Judge for the Central District of California, either in person at the First Street Courthouse, 350 W. 1st Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, in Courtroom 6B, 6th Floor, or by telephone or videoconference (at the discretion of the Court), to determine whether: (i) for purposes of settlement, the Action should be certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Classes, Lead Plaintiff Dr. Thomas E. Tweito and Lead Counsel Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP should be appointed as class representative and class counsel, respectively, for the 10(b) Settlement Class, and Lead Plaintiff Drew Conant and Plaintiff Eric Lee, and Lead Counsel Pomerantz LLP should be appointed as class representatives and class counsel, respectively, for the 14(a) Settlement Class; (ii) the Settlements should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (iii) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the releases specified and described in the 10(b) Class Stipulation and the 14(a) Class Stipulation (and in the Notices described below) should be entered; (iv) the proposed Plans of Allocation for the net proceeds of the Settlements should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (v) counsels' applications for awards of attorneys' fees and expenses and compensatory awards to Plaintiffs, should be approved. Any updates regarding the hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the website for the Settlements, www.strategicclaims.net/owlet. If you are a member of one or both Settlement Classes, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlements, and you may be entitled to share in the settlement proceeds. This notice provides only a summary of the information contained in the detailed Notice for each Settlement. You may obtain copies of both Notices, along with the Claim Form, on the website for the Settlements, www.strategicclaims.net/owlet. You may also obtain copies of the detailed Notices and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at Owlet Securities Litigation Settlements, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205, Media, PA 19063; 1-866-274-4004; info@strategicclaims.net. If you are a member of one or both Settlement Classes, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlements, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed), or online at www.strategicclaims.net/owlet, no later than December 12, 2025 for the 14(a) Class Settlement or no later than January 17, 2026 for the 10(b) Class Settlement, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Claim Form. If you submit a Claim Form, your eligibility to receive payment will be assessed in connection with both Settlements. If you are a member of one or both Settlement Classes and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlements, but you will nevertheless be bound by any releases, judgments, or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the 10(b) Settlement Class, the 14(a) Settlement Class, or both Settlement Classes and wish to exclude yourself from one or both Settlement Classes, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than January 16, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the detailed Notices. If you properly exclude yourself from one or both Settlement Classes, you will not be bound by any releases, judgments, or orders entered by the Court in the Action, and you will not be eligible to share in the net proceeds of the Settlements. Excluding yourself is the only option that may allow you to be part of any other current or future lawsuit against Defendants or any of the other released parties concerning the claims being resolved by the Settlements. Any objections to the proposed Settlements, the proposed Plans of Allocation (as contained in the Notices), and/or counsels' motions for attorneys' fees and expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to the respective counsel at the addresses and in the forms specified in the detailed Notices such that they are received no later than January 16, 2026, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the detailed Notices. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR THEIR COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All questions about this notice, the Settlements, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlements should be directed to the counsel set forth below or the Claims Administrator. Requests for the detailed Notices and Claim Form should be made to the Claims Administrator: Owlet Securities Litigation Settlements c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205 Media, PA 19063 1-866-274-4004 info@strategicclaims.net www.strategicclaims.net/owlet Inquiries, other than requests for the detailed Notices and Claim Form, may be made to counsel as follows: Inquiries for the 10(b) Class Settlement should be directed to: Jennifer L. Joost, Esq. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 1-415-400-3000 info@ktmc.com Inquiries for the 14(a) Class Settlement should be directed to: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Tamar A. Weinrib, Esq. Pomerantz LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 1-212-661-1100 jalieberman@pomlaw.com taweinrib@pomlaw.com DATED: OCTOBER 27, 2025 BY ORDERS OF THE COURT United States District Court Central District of California PELLA WINDOWS: Newell Sues Over Unwanted Telephone Calls -------------------------------------------------------- JOUREY NEWELL, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PELLA WINDOWS & DOORS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-06074 (E.D. Pa., October 24, 2025) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff brings this action under the TCPA alleging that Defendant contacted Plaintiff, whose number is on the National Do Not Call Registry and also left Plaintiff highly illegal prerecorded voice messages. These calls were made without the call recipient's prior express written consent, says the suit. Because the calls were transmitted using technology capable of generating thousands of similar calls per day, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who were sent the same illegal telemarketing calls. Pella Windows & Doors, Inc. designs, tests, manufactures, and installs windows and doors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq. BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC 403 S. Allen St., Suite 210 State College, PA 16801 Telephone: (814) 234-2626 E-mail: jjackson@bower-law.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com PILOT TRAVEL: Faces Pimentel Suit Over TCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------- JAN CARLOS PIMENTEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 234344394 ((Cir. Court, Miami-Dade County, Fl, October 23, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for making unsolicited calls to consumers that have registered their telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, including the Plaintiff who registered his cellular telephone on February 23, 2013, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. The plaintiff alleges that he never signed any type of authorization permitting or allowing Defendant to send him call solicitations. On September 11, 2025, Defendant made telephone solicitations to his cellular telephone. Overall, Defendant caused approximately 2 telephone solicitations to be transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number. The purpose of Defendant's telephonic sales calls was to advertise, promote, and market Defendant's property, goods, and services. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to him and the Class members. He also seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. The Plaintiff is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Pilot Travel Centers LLC is an Illinois Limited Liability Company with its headquarters located in Knoxville, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: 813-340-8838 E-mail: mitchell@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com PLAYTIKA LTD: Wright Sues Over Illegal Online Social Casino ----------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PLAYTIKA LTD. and PLAYTIKA HOLDING CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00960 (D. Utah, October 27, 2025) is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated consumers, to redress Defendants' widespread violations of Utah's Gambling Act. The suit contends that while Defendants advertise and promote the Slotomania Gambling Platform, an online social casino, to persons in Utah as a legitimate online business, thereby giving it an aura of legitimacy and legality to Plaintiff and Class members, the Platform is actually a dangerous and plainly unlawful gambling enterprise. Allegedly, the scheme involves illegal conduct of Defendant where it sells digital "coins" to consumers, including Plaintiff, on the Slotomania Gambling Platform -- including consumers in Utah -- and then immediately accepts those coins back (from by the consumers who purchased them) as wagers on the outcomes of the various casino-style games of chance offered on the Slotomania Gambling Platform. Playtika Ltd. operates online social casino available at www.slotomania.com and on various mobile apps.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 E-mail: ejackson@hedinllp.com - and - David W. Scofield, Esq. PETERS ❘ SCOFIELD A Professional Corporation 7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, UT 84093-6160 Telephone: (801) 322-2002 E-mail: dws@psplawyers.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC 140 Broadway, Fl 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com PROSPER FUNDING: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Huff Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN HUFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROSPER FUNDING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-09162 (N.D. Cal., October 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure Plaintiff's and other customers' personally identifiable information and sensitive financial information in connection with a data security event disclosed by Defendant in September 2025. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain Personal Information. The Plaintiff seeks, among other things, orders requiring Defendant to fully and accurately disclose the nature of the information that has been compromised and to adopt sufficient security practices and safeguards to prevent incidents like the data breach in the future. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a current, imminent, and ongoing risk of fraud and identity theft, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and for years into the future closely monitor their financial accounts and credit reports to guard against identity theft. As a result of Defendant's unreasonable and inadequate data security Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered numerous actual and concrete injuries and damages, says the suit. PROSPER FUNDING, LLC is a financial services company that provides loans, credit cards, and home equity financial products to its customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colleen L. Fewer, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 376-2097 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 RAAC MANAGEMENT: $7.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 11 --------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE TOMAS ENRIQUE GOMEZ Plaintiff, v. RAAC MANAGEMENT LLC, ACCELERATION CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, REVOLUTION SPECIAL OPPORTUNITIES LLC, JOHN J. DELANEY, STEPHEN M. CASE, STEVEN A. MUSELES, PHYLLIS R. CALDWELL, JASON M. FISH, and THOMAS WAGNER, Defendants. C.A. No. 2024-0744-PAF SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR TO: ALL RECORD AND BENEFICIAL HOLDERS OF RAAC CLASS A COMMON STOCK, WHO HELD SUCH STOCK AS OF THE REDEMPTION DEADLINE OF JULY 16, 2021, AND WHO ELECTED NOT TO REDEEM ALL OR SOME OF THEIR STOCK, AND THEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST WHO OBTAINED SHARES BY OPERATION OF LAW, EXCLUDING ANY EXCLUDED PERSONS. THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and Rule 23 of the Delaware Rules of Civil Procedure, that: (i) the action pending in the Court has been preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of the Class; and (ii) Plaintiff and Defendants have reached a proposed settlement for $7,500,000.00 in cash as set forth in the Stipulation, a copy of which is available at www.RAACStockholderSettlement.com. The Settlement, if approved by the Court, will resolve all claims in the Action. To maximize your recovery as a member of the Class based on your claims in the Action, you must complete and submit the Proof of Claim and Release Form attached to the long-form notice or available at www.RAACStockholderSettlement.comby February 21, 2026. The Proof of Claim and Release form may be submitted either online at www.RAACStockholderSettlement.com or by printing it and submitting it to RAAC Stockholder Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173123, Milwaukee, WI 53217. If you fail to submit a timely and properly addressed Proof of Claim and Release, your claim will be limited to a base distribution in the amount of $0.10 per Eligible Share. A hearing will be held on December 11, 2025 at 11:00 a.m., before The Honorable Paul A. Fioravanti, Vice Chancellor. The Settlement Hearing will be held either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, or remotely by telephone or videoconference (in the discretion of the Court). The purpose of the Settlement Hearing is, among other things, to: (i) determine whether to finally certify the Class for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2); (ii) determine whether Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Counsel have adequately represented the Class, and whether Plaintiff should be finally appointed as a Class representative for the Class and Plaintiff's Counsel should be finally appointed as Class counsel for the Class; (iii) determine whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class and in the best interests of the Class; (iv) determine whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice and the Releases provided under the Stipulation should be granted; (v) determine whether the Order and Final Judgment approving the Settlement should be entered; (vi) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be approved; (vii) determine whether and in what amount any Fee and Expense Award should be paid to Plaintiff's Counsel out of the Settlement Fund; (viii) determine whether and in what amount any representative party award should be paid to Plaintiff out of the Fee and Expense Award; (ix) hear and rule on any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Plaintiff's Counsel's application for a Fee and Expense Award; and (x) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website, www.RAACStockholderSettlement.com. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the Settlement Administrator at: RAAC Stockholder Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173123, Milwaukee, WI 53217, or by telephone at 1-877-580-7812. A copy of the Notice can also be downloaded from the Settlement website, www.RAACStockholderSettlement.com. If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis to Class Members in accordance with the terms of the proposed Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of allocation as is approved by the Court. The Class is a non "opt-out" class pursuant to Delaware Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2). Accordingly, Class Members will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Stipulation. Any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Plaintiff's Counsel's application for the Fee and Expense Award must be filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and delivered to Plaintiff's Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than November 26, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in Chancery regarding this Summary Notice. All questions about this Summary Notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or Plaintiffs' Counsel. Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement Administrator: RAAC Stockholder Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173123 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Telephone: (877) 580-7812 Email: info@RAACStockholderSettlement.com Website: www.RAACStockholderSettlement.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to Plaintiff's Counsel: Rebecca A. Musarra Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 Email: rmusarra@gelaw.com BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE: Dated: October 24, 2025 SALESLOFT INC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Jugo Says -------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTIAN JUGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SALESLOFT, INC., and APPFOLIO, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06113-ELR (N.D. Ga., October 24, 2025) is a class action against Defendants for their collective failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals personally identifying information. According to the complaint, despite Defendants' duty to safeguard the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members, their private information in Defendants' possession was compromised when an unauthorized party gained access to Salesloft's system and AppFolio's Customer Relationship Management system and exfiltrated sensitive data stored therein on August 8, 2025. The data breach occurred when cybercriminals infiltrated Defendants' inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PII that was being kept therein, says the suit. As a result, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was compromised by an unauthorized third-party. The Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe and are entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief. The Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief, including the adoption of reasonably sufficient practices to safeguard the Private Information in Defendants' custody to prevent incidents like the Data Breach from recurring in the future, and for Defendants to provide identity theft protective services to Plaintiff and Class Members for their lifetimes. Salesloft, Inc. is an AI-powered revenue orchestration platform that provides sales engagement tools to help sales teams at many companies, including AppFolio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq. GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 4279 Roswell Road Suite 208-108 Atlanta, GA 30342 Telephone: (678) 642-2503 E-mail: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com - and - J. Cameron Tribble, Esq. THE BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC 31 Atlanta Street Marietta, GA 30060 Telephone: (770) 227-6375 Facsimile: (770) 227-6373 E-mail: ctribble@barneslawgroup.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Stephen E. Connolly, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 E-mail: jerry@lcllp.com steve@lcllp.com SELECT PORTFOLIO: Bid for Class Cert in Harnett Due July 10, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARDNETT v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-01534 (D.D.C., Filed May 24, 2024), the Hon. Judge Amir H. Ali entered a scheduling order as follows: -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due by July 10, 2026. -- The Defendant's opposition to motion for class certification is due by Aug. 14, 2026. -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for class certification is due by Sept. 4, 2026. The nature of suit states Consumer Credit. Select is a loan servicing company.[CC] SHENZHEN CHARMAST: Yim Class Suit Transferred to W.D. Wash. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled BARBARA YIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHENZHEN CHARMAST TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., and AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-04782-EMC, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on October 27, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02103 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated who purchased Charmast Power Banks, model W10561 because the lithium-ion battery in the power banks can overheat and ignite, posing fire and burn hazards to consumers. Shenzhen Charmast Technology Co. is a company that markets and sells its power banks and does business in every state by listing its products for sale on line through its own website and Amazon Store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Bohren, Esq. YANNI LAW APC 145 South Spring Street, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (619) 433-2803 E-mail: yanni@bohrenlaw.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com Defendant Amazon.Com Inc. is represented by: Kevin Sami Asfour, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 552−5000 Facsimile: (310) 552−5001 E-mail: kevin.asfour@klgates.com - and - Jennifer Janeira Nagle, Esq. Robert W. Sparkes, III, Esq. K&L GATES LLP One Congress Street Suite 2900 Boston, MA 02114−2010 Telephone: (617) 951−9197 E-mail: jennifer.nagle@klgates.com robert.sparkes@klgates.com - and - Loly Tor, Esq. K&L GATES LLP One Newark Center, 10th Fl. Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 848−4026 Facsimile: (973) 848−4001 E-mail: loly.tor@klgates.com STAKE CENTER: Underpays Fiber Locator Technicians, Michael Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MARK MICHAEL, ANDREW HORTON, and MATTHEW YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STAKE CENTER LOCATING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02192-RLY-KMB (S.D. Ind., October 24, 2025) is brought by the Plaintiffs against Defendant in order to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act and the Indiana Minimum Wage Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant was required to pay Named Plaintiffs and Putative Plaintiffs for all hours worked and pay them 150% of their regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. By willfully failing to compensate Named Plaintiffs and Putative Plaintiffs who performed pre-shift, meal break, and post-shiftwork, Defendant willfully violated the federal and state laws. Named Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as hourly non-exempt fiber locator technicians. Stake Center Locating, LLC is an infrastructure and fiber optic network locating company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Nickole K. Iula, Esq. Anna R. Caplan, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX,LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com niula@barkanmeizlish.com acaplan@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. 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 TOYOTA OF DALLAS: Court Denies Class Certification in "Mitchell" ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Rhonn Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Toyota of Dallas, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:23-CV-1278-N (N.D. Tex.), Senior United States District Judge David C. Godbey of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify class. The Court addressed Plaintiff Rhonn Mitchell's motion to certify class. For the reasons set forth, the Court denied the motion. Rhonn Mitchell bought a used car from Toyota of Dallas in 2018 and began receiving telemarketing text messages from the Defendant. On January 30, 2020, Mitchell opted out of receiving further messages from the Defendant and received a confirmation text that he was unsubscribed and will no longer receive messages. In 2021, he received another text message from the Defendant asking, Is texting the most convenient way of communicating with you? Reply YES to allow, Reply STOP to cancel. Despite opting out of further messages twice, Mitchell continued to receive several telemarketing messages between 2020 and 2023. Mitchell alleged that the Defendant sent 16,546 text messages to 1,539 customers who also opted out of further messages from the Defendant, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. He sought to assert claims on behalf of two classes covering persons in the United States and persons in Texas who received more than one telemarketing message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase of Defendant's goods or services in any twelve month period since June 6, 2019, on a residential telephone number, where the user had opted out of receiving additional messages from Defendant within the previous five years, where the text message contained specific phrases, and were received more than 31 days after the user opted out. The Court noted that even if the putative class satisfied the Rule 23(a) requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy, the class failed under both Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) because individual issues precluded certification. Under Rule 23(b)(3), the Court must identify the substantive issues that will control the outcome, assess which issues will predominate, and then determine whether the issues are common to the class, a process that prevents the class from degenerating into a series of individual trials. Similarly, under Rule 23(b)(2), a Court must determine whether a class is sufficiently cohesive so that examination of the particular circumstances of each member of the class is unnecessary. The Court found that a substantive issue that will control the outcome is whether the text messages sent by the Defendant, after consumers opted out of receiving them, violate the TCPA. Mitchell asserted that his expert witness, Anya Verkhovskaya, would rely on the Defendant's records to identify individuals that received continued calls or texts after opting out of further messages. Once a customer opted out of telemarketing messages, their contact information was placed on the Defendant's internal do-not-call list. Mitchell would then use a methodology developed by Verkhovskaya to identify class members from call logs and phone numbers from the Defendant's do-not-call list. Mitchell argued that this identification system would provide class-wide proof to determine this common issue to the class and prevent the need for mini trials. However, the class likely cannot be identified as Mitchell suggested because individualized issues of consent would predominate at trial. First, Verkhovskaya's methodology did not consider that some individuals may have provided some sort of express consent to begin receiving text messages again after opting out of receiving them. The Defendant explained that putative class members could have reconsented to messaging in a variety of ways during the course of business with the Defendant. These other methods of consent include inbound calls by putative class members, visits to a dealership, and third-party platforms such as Kelly Blue Book, Cars.com, or Truecars.com. Second, the Defendant's expert sampled 309 phone numbers belonging to putative class members and found at least 256 numbers have activity on the Defendant's internal work notes, indicating they may (1) have voluntarily reengaged with the Defendant or otherwise expressly consented to receive additional telemarketing messages, (2) be a business number not subject to TCPA or (3) otherwise do not fit in Mitchell's proposed class definition. Verkhovskaya's methodology did not consider these other methods of consent or how to reliably distinguish business phone numbers not subject to TCPA from consumer phone numbers. Therefore, the consent issue would necessitate individual inquiries to determine whether a putative class member provided consent for the Defendant to send telemarketing communications. Additionally, because this individual issue had the potential to separate class members from each other, the class lacked the cohesiveness necessary for the Court to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2). In an attempt to resolve the consent issue, Mitchell amended the proposed class definitions and limited the putative class to consumers who do not have a signed written agreement reconsenting to the Defendant's telemarketing messages. However, this amendment did not resolve all consent issues because, even if the amendment properly captured relevant consumers for the putative class, Verkhovskaya's methodology still failed to separate businesses from consumers. Thus, issues of consent would predominate the litigation and prevent cohesiveness in the class. The Court concluded that the putative class is not sufficiently cohesive and that individualized issues of consent would predominate the trial if the Court certified this class. Thus, the Court denied Mitchell's motion to certify. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CDiRoL from PacerMonitor.com TRANS UNION: Court Grants Motions to Seal Personal Data in "Brooks" ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as William Norman Brooks, III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Trans Union LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 22-0048-KSM (E.D. Pa.), Judge Karen Spencer Marston of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the parties' motions to seal portions of memoranda and exhibits related to the Defendant's motion for class decertification. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant violated Section 1681e(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act when it sold third-party creditors consumer reports that erroneously showed the consumers had filed for bankruptcy. In January 2022, the Plaintiff brought a putative class action complaint against the Defendant, which he amended the following month. In May 2024, this case was reassigned from the Honorable Gene E. K. Pratter to the Honorable Karen Spencer Marston. Following two years of class discovery and oral argument on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, the Court granted certification of a single class of individuals seeking relief under Section 1681e of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The certified class included all natural persons with an address in the United States and its Territories about whom the Defendant sold a consumer report to a third party from January 6, 2020 to January 31, 2023 which included a bankruptcy remark on a tradeline, but with no reference to a bankruptcy record in the public record section of the same report, and for whom there is no government-held public record of a bankruptcy filing within ten years prior to the date of the report. The Defendant moved for decertification, which the Plaintiff opposed. Before the Court were the parties' respective motions to seal, which requested leave to publicly file portions of memoranda and exhibits with targeted redactions. The parties claimed that these seven documents contained personal identifying information about nonparties, consumer report information subject to the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and bankruptcy record information of nonlitigant class members which reveals personal identifying information. The Court noted that a more rigorous standard applies when a party seeks to seal judicial documents than applies to protective orders shielding discovery materials. Once a discovery document becomes a judicial record, the common law presumption of the right of public access attaches. Because the documents will be filed as part of the public record regarding the Defendant's motion for decertification, they are judicial records to which the common law right of access attaches. The Court explained that this right is not absolute, however, and may be rebutted by a showing that an interest in secrecy outweighs the presumption. To meet this burden, the party requesting the sealing order must demonstrate that the material is the kind of information that courts will protect and that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure. Both the Defendant and the Plaintiff sought to file documents publicly with redactions of personal identifying information and credit account information of nonlitigants and potential class members, printouts of bankruptcy proceedings filed by nonlitigants and potential class members, and consumer reports. The Plaintiff also sought to file the entirety of Exhibit 6 to the Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant's Motion under seal. The parties prepared charts that identified each document, the nature of the information redacted in the document, and the justification for the redaction when moving for information to be sealed. The Court's review of the parties' charts and proposed redactions confirmed that the parties sought to seal only personally identifying, bankruptcy, and consumer credit related information. Specifically, the parties both proposed to seal the names of nonlitigants and potential class members, the partial and full social security numbers of nonlitigants and potential class members, the town of residence of nonlitigant witnesses, the full and partial addresses of nonlitigants and potential class members, the birthdates of nonlitigants and potential class members, unique numbers that identify a single consumer's file within the Defendant's database of consumer credit information, the bankruptcy court, docket number, filing dates, and docket sheets of nonlitigants and potential class members, and consumer report information, containing both personally identifying information as well as credit account information of nonlitigants and potential class members. The Court noted that much of the information the parties sought to seal falls squarely within the set of required redactions enumerated in this Court's local rules, namely, social security numbers, dates of birth, and financial account numbers. Moreover, personal identifying information of nonlitigants and potential class members is the kind of information that courts will protect and that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury on nonparties, such that the common law presumption of access is overcome. The Court concluded that personally identifying information of nonparties is precisely the kind of information that courts protect, and disclosure of this information would result in a clearly defined and serious injury to the privacy interests of nonparties. Further, the Fair Credit Reporting Act provides that consumer reporting agencies such as the Defendant may only disclose consumer report information under certain circumstances, including by order of a court. The Court issued a protective order and designated highly confidential any information containing non-public personal information related to consumers and all consumer report information as that term is defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Accordingly, the parties have overcome the common law presumption of public access as to both personal identifying information and consumer report information. The public can learn and understand the parties' substantive arguments without needing to learn the names or other personal identifying information of nonlitigants and potential class members. Given the collateral nature of this information, its redaction only marginally affects the public's right to access materials filed in relation to judicial proceedings. Furthermore, redacting this information from the identified exhibits represents the least restrictive means available to protect the privacy interests at stake. As for Exhibit 6 to the Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant's Motion, targeted redactions of all personally identifying information and consumer report information would not be feasible. Exhibit 6 is replete with personally identifying information and consumer report information that is frequently coded and has been aggregated in inconsistent formats. Accordingly, sealing Exhibit 6 to the Plaintiff's Memorandum is narrowly tailored to protect the personal identifying information and consumer report of nonlitigants and potential class members. The Court found all the parties' proposed redactions and sealing requests are warranted under both the common law and First Amendment. Accordingly, the Court granted both parties leave to file redacted and sealed documents on the public docket. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Lef6Qt from PacerMonitor.com UNFI GROCERS: Williams Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Tamika K. Williams, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. UNFI GROCERS DISTRIBUTION, INC.; UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-13531 was removed from the Superior Court in the State of California for the County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of California on Oct. 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-at-00989. The Plaintiff's First Cause of Action for Failure to Pay All Hours of Work at the Legal Minimum Wage Rate. The Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action for Failure Pay Overtime Wages. The Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action for Failure to Authorize or Permit Meal Periods. The Plaintiff's Fourth Cause of Action for Failure to Authorize or Permit Required Rest Periods. The Plaintiff's Fifth Cause of Action for Failure to Indemnify Employees for Employment-Related Losses and Expenditures. The Plaintiffs' Sixth Cause of Action for Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Wage Statements. The Plaintiff's Eighth Cause of Action for Unfair Business Practices in Violation of California Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq Anahi Cruz, Esq MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Phone: +1.213.612.2500 Fax: +1.213.612.2501 Email: jennifer.zargarof@morganlewis.com anahi.cruz@morganlewis.com UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Underpays Patient Care Employees, Polson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARK POLSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02285-DAP (N.D. Ohio, October 23, 2025) is a collective and class action complaint against the Defendant for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and Ohio's Prompt Pay Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt hourly surgical assistant since July 20, 2020, along with other similarly situated employees who were also hourly employees of the Defendant within the last three years. Given the nature of Plaintiff's job, he and those similarly situated could not perform their jobs without the sterile work clothing that Defendant requires to be donned and doffed at its facility. Plaintiff typically spent up to ten minutes donning and up to ten minutes doffing his sterile work clothing for each shift. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and those similarly situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek for Defendant, including donning and doffing time. However, the Defendant transmitted inaccurate and incomplete records to payroll for compensation purposes, which excluded donning and doffing from compensable time worked, asserts the complaint. As a result, the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective members were injured and are entitled to an award of "unpaid overtime compensation" as well as "an additional equal amount as liquidated damages", adds the complaint. Plaintiff Mark Polson has worked for the Defendant in the surgery department at Parma Medical Center. University Hospitals Health System, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation that provides hospital and healthcare services in Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher St, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: 3304704428 Facsimile: 3307541430 E-mail: hnilges@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 E. 9th St, Suite 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: 216-230-2955 Facsimile: 330-754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Guillen Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dolores Guillen, an individual, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated employees v. WORLDWIDE FLIGHT SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; JASON BIXBY, an individual; LIANE C. KELLY, an individual; MICHAEL W. SIMPSON, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No. 25STCV16433 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Oct. 27, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10315. On August 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). The FAC purports to state causes of action for: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods or Compensation In Lieu Thereof; Failure to Provide Rest Periods or Compensation in Lieu Thereof; Failure to Pay Due Wages At Termination; Failure to Furnish Accurate Wage Statements; Violation of Labor Code Section 226 (C); Violation of Labor Code Section 1198.5; Violation of Labor Code Section 2802; Unfair Competition; and Civil Penalties Under Labor Code Section 2699, et seq. (PAGA).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: James C. Fessenden, Esq. Julia A. Sherwood, Esq. Lauren M. Guggisberg, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (858) 597-9600 Facsimile: (858) 597-9601 Email: jfessenden@fisherphillips.com jsherwood@fisherphillips.com lguggisberg@fisherphillips.com - and - Lirit A. King, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 21600 Oxnard Street Suite 650 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 Email: lking@fisherphillips.com - and - Landon R. Schwob, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 Email: lschwob@fisherphillips.com WWEX FRANCHISE: Sisson Suit Removed to N.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dennis Sisson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WWEX FRANCHISE HOLDINGS, LLC, WORLDWIDE EXPRESS, LLC; GLOBALTRANZ ENTERPRISES, LLC, WORLDWIDE EXPRESS OPERATIONS, LLC, and WWEX INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. DC-25-14873 was removed from the 134th Judicial District Court for Dallas County, Texas, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Texas on Oct. 27, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02910-L. On August 22, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a class action against WWEX Defendants (the "Class Action Petition"). In the Class Action Petition, Plaintiff seeks certification of a class pursuant to Rule 42 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: John C.C. Sanders, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 2121 North Pearl Street, Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 453-6500 Fax: (214) 453-6400 Email: JSanders@winston.com JSullivan@winston.com - and - Patrice D. Ott, Esq. KOLEY JESSEN P.C., L.L.O. One Pacific Place, Suite 800 1125 South 103rd Street Omaha, NE 68124 Phone: (402) 390-9500 Facsimile (402) 390-9005 Email: Patrice.ott@koleyjessen.com YELLOW SOCIAL INTERACTIVE: Gardner Sues Over Gambling Act Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bailey Gardner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YELLOW SOCIAL INTERACTIVE LTD.; and YSI US, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00958 (D. Utah, Oct. 27, 2025), is brought to redress Defendants' widespread violations of Utah's Gambling Act. The Defendants sell digital "coins" to consumers on the Pulsz Gambling Platform--including consumers in Utah--and then immediately accept those coins back (from by the consumers who purchased them) as wagers on the outcomes of the various casino-style games of chance offered on the Pulsz Gambling Platform. Consumers who purchase and then wager "coins" on the Pulsz Gambling Platform do so in the hopes of winning more "coins," which can be used to place more wagers and, in some instances, are redeemable for cash. The Plaintiff and numerous other Utah residents have lost significant sums of their hard earned money placing wagers on the Pulsz Gambling Platform, and Defendants have in turn reaped enormous profits from the losses these people have sustained. Utah law clearly prohibits what Defendants have done. Utah's Gambling Act prohibits persons from operating or receiving revenue from "fringe gaming devices," "video gaming devices," or "gambling devices or records." The games offered on the Pulsz Gambling Platform constitute all three of these things, and Defendants have amassed significant revenue from Plaintiff and numerous others in Utah who have played them, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Bailey Gardner created an account on the Pulsz Gambling Platform. Yellow Social Interactive Ltd. and YSI US, Inc. own, operate, and receive significant revenue from their online "sweepstakes" casinos available at www.pulsz.com and www.pulszbingo.com, where they offer casino style slots, table games, video poker, and digital scratch cards to anyone willing to spend real money wagering on them (the "Pulsz Gambling Platform").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot O. Jackson, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Phone: (305) 357-2107 Email: ejackson@hedinllp.com - and - David W. Scofield, Esq. PETERS | SCOFIELD A Professional Corporation 7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, UT 84093-6160 Phone: (801) 322-2002 Email: dws@psplawyers.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC 140 Broadway, FL 46 New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 884-4230 Email: adrian@gr-firm.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***