251111.mbx

251111.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, November 11, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 225 Headlines 84 LUMBER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Runciman Suit Due Dec. 2 ACADIA LAPLACE: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Hamm Suit to 5th Cir. ALPHABET INC: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Supplemental Authority APPLE COMMUTER: Abuladze Seeks to Certify Concierge Worker Class APPLE COMMUTER: Class Cert. Bid Response in Kakha Due Nov. 7 ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Mismanages 401(k) Plan, Porter Suit Alleges AT&T INC: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Pate Suit Alleges BAUSCH HEALTH: Conspires to Keep Monopoly Power, Value Suit Says BEAZER HOMES: Fogle Appeals Reconsideration Bid Order to 4th Cir. BETSY ROSS: Underpays Certified Nursing Assistants, Sorrell Claims BH SECURITY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 22, 2026 BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Bid to Dismiss AAUP Class Action Tossed CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Settlement Hearing Reset to Nov. 20 CALIFORNIA: Suit Seeks to Certify Print-Disabled Person Class CAMPBELL'S COMPANY: Faces Ripa Suit Over Potato Chips' False Labels CHEWY INC: Faces Wright Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store CLAIRE DEMATTEIS: Evans' Bid for Leave to File SAC Tossed CLINT MILLER: Iasella Seeks to Reformulate Class Definition COMPLETE CLOTHING: Murphy Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers CRANE LENDING: Wood Sues Over Illegal Rent-A-Tribe Lending Scheme DELOITTE CONSULTING: Class Settlement in Marchand Gets Initial OK DELOITTE CONSULTING: Class Settlement in Morales Gets Initial Nod DELOITTE CONSULTING: Class Settlement in Pannozzi Gets Initial Nod DELOITTE CONSULTING: Class Settlement in Triguiero Gets Initial Nod DELOITTE CONSULTING: Settlement in Lucchetti Gets Initial Nod DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Robertson Allowed Leave to File Class Brief EVENFLO COMPANY: Toney Sues Over Car Seats' Choking Risks for Kids EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Keller Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit FCS SNEAKERS: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Solis Claims FLAGSHIP RESTAURANT: Court OKs Certification in "Hallman" FLAGSHIP RESTAURANT: Lippold Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois FMGI INC: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines FORBIDDEN PLANET: Solis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FRESHREALM INC: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Dec. 4, 2026 GEICO: Ching Seeks to Extend Class Cert Bid. Filing GENEDX HOLDINGS: Helo Securities Class Suit Discovery Ongoing GKN DRIVELINE: Ayers Bid for Class Certification Tossed GKN DRIVELINE: Carson Bid for Class Certification Tossed GKN DRIVELINE: Ferges Bid for Class Certification Tossed GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE: Slaughter Suit Over Compromised Clients' Info GREEN KITCHEN: Bid for Conditional Collective Cert. Due Nov. 18 GTS LIVING: Renewed Bid for Class Cert in Sharpe Due Feb. 27, 2026 HESS BAKKEN: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Penman Due Jan. 16, 2026 HIGHLANDS BROADWAY: Baldwin Sues Over Physical Barriers HOYT ARCHERY: Close Suit Transferred to D. Colorado HYATT CORP: Class Cert Expert Disclosure in Jimenez Due Dec. 23 HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA: Hartman Sues Over Systematic Defects INMARKET MEDIA: Experts Disclosure in Lionetta Due Dec. 4, 2026 J A ALEXANDER: Parties Seeks Collective Settlement Approval JACKSON-MITCHELL: Rodriguez Suit Removed to N.D. California JILL ACQUISITION: Appeals Reconsideration Bid Order to 9th Circuit JOHN O'BANNON: Must File Reply Brief by Nov. 20 JP MORGAN CHASE: Giglio Sues Over Unlawful Debt Communication KRISTI NOEM: Petitioners' Amended Bid for Prelim. Injunction OK'd LIBERTY MUTUAL: Class Fact Discovery Due April 24, 2026 LITTLE CAESAR: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Dec. 19 LIVE NATION: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal LOS ANGELES, CA: Expert Discovery in Alvarez Due Oct. 16, 2026 LOW TECH: Faces Murphy Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store MARDER TRAWLING: Faces Perez Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Massachusetts MARYLAND: Faces Williams Suit Over Collection of Usurious Loans MCKESSON CORP: True Health to File Renewed Class Certification Bid MCKESSON MEDICAL: Court Extends Class Cert Deadline METAL WARE: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MID AMERICA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 1, 2026 MONTEREY MUSHROOMS: Related Cases Consolidated with Sherman Suit MY DEVICE: Rosario Allowed Leave to File Renewed Class Cert Bid NEW YORK, NY: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid NORTH AMERICAN: Ott Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Machinists NVIDIA CORP: Aids Third Party to Collect Client Data, Penning Says ORRSTOWN BANK: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Feb. 6, 2026 PENSKE LOGISTICS: Class Cert Hearing Vacated in Nelson Suit PETROLEX II: Bid to Amend Class Cert. Amended to April 16, 2026 PLAUD INC: Murphy Sues Over Blind Users' Equal Access to Website PRIORITY LIFE: Discriminates Against Minority Executives, Rowe Says PROGENITY INC: Class Settlement in Soe Suit Gets Initial Nod PROTECTIVE LIFE: Absent Class Members' Bid for Atty's Fees Tossed ROWING BLAZERS: Faces Williams Suit Over Website's Access Barriers RUSSELL CELLULAR: Winter Sues Over Unpaid OT for Store Managers SANTA MONICA, CA: Contreras Seeks to Certify Impound Class SEATGEEK INC: Overcharges Ticket Resale Price, Weinstein Alleges SEYBOTH TEAM: Class Cert Responses Filing Due Nov. 7 SKYNET INDUSTRIES: Court Narrows Claims in Hackett Suit SPOTIFY INC: Rapper Sues Over Fraudulent Streams of Drake's Songs STAT COURIER: Class Settlement in Jemison Gets Initial Nod STRIPE INC: Riles Sues Over Blocked Payments on The Gold App TALL TIMBERS: Smith Suit Seeks Class Certification TANDEM DIABETES: Underpays Manual Software Testers, Ostrie Claims TEAMSTERS UNION: Pedroza Class Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts TRADER JOE'S: Stephan Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action TRANS UNION: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Opposition Brief TREE TOP: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Johnson Due Nov. 9 TRI CONTRACTING: Jorge Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages TRICIDA INC: Class Settlement in Pardi Suit Gets Final Nod TURQUOISE HILL: $138.75MM Class Settlement Gets Final Nod UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs' Class Cert Bid Tossed UNITED STATES: Tanner-Brown Appeals Suit Dismissal to D.C. Circuit VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN: Thomas Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. VIP 1 PARTNERS: Jimenez Sues to Recover Overtime Wages WALGREEN CO: Brown Suit Removed to C.D. California WALGREEN CO: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Polk Due Feb. 13, 2026 WESTERN RESERVE: Roby Seeks Unpaid OT for Surgical Technologists WILSON OUTDOOR: Steward Sues Over Unpaid OT & Retaliatory Discharge WONDERFUL SHOES: Faces Solis Suit Over Website's Access Barriers [^] 12 Litigators Recognized in CAU's Inaugural Award ********* 84 LUMBER: Class Cert Bid Filing in Runciman Suit Due Dec. 2 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL RUNCIMAN, individually, on behalf of the Amended and Restated Savings Fund Plan for Employees of 84 Lumber Company, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 84 LUMBER COMPANY, ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE of the Amended and Restated Savings Fund Plan for Employees of 84 Lumber Company, JOHN DOES 1-30 in their capacities as members of the Administrative Committee, Case No. 2:24-cv-00852-NR-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Maureen Kelly entered an order granting the Parties' Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines for: -- Class certification discovery set for Nov. 17, 2025, is extended to Feb. 13, 2026. -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, memorandum in support, and all supporting evidence for Dec. 2, 2025, is extended to Feb. 27, 2026. -- The Defendants' memorandum in opposition to class certification and all supporting evidence for Jan. 6, 2026, is extended to Mar. 27, 2026. -- The Plaintiff's reply memorandum in support of Class certification, due by Jan. 20, 2026, is extended to Apr. 10, 2026. -- The Defendants' sur-reply, if necessary, due by Jan. 27, 2026, is extended to Apr. 17, 2026. The Defendant is an operated American building materials supply company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LtTpU8 at no extra charge.[CC] ACADIA LAPLACE: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Hamm Suit to 5th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ACADIA LAPLACE HOLDINGS, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Amy Hamm, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Acadia Laplace Holdings, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01515-SM-DPC, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff brought this suit against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Texas law. On Jan. 10, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Susie Morgan granted on Sept. 2, 2025. The Plaintiff's motion to certify a class action to pursue causes of action for unjust enrichment and conversion under Louisiana law is granted. It is further ordered that this trial be bifurcated and that the issues of liability and damages will be tried separately. The firm of Schneider Wallace Cottrell Kim LLP is named class counsel. The appellate case is entitled Amy Hamm v. Acadia Laplace Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. _______, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on October 22, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent AMY HAMM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joseph C. Peiffer, Esq. Daniel Centner, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY, APLC 1519 Robert C. Blakes, Sr. Drive New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 523-2434 Email: jpeiffer@pawcklegal.com dcentner@pwcklegal.com - and - Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell St., Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com rmorelli@schneiderwallace.com Defendants-Petitioners ACADIA LAPLACE HOLDINGS, LLC, et al. are represented by: Philip J. Giorlando, Esq. BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON, LLP 909 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 680-5244 Email: Philip.giorlando@bswllp.com - and - Frederick L. Conrad III, Esq. Matthew A. Caplan, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 511 Union St., Suite 2700 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-6380 Email: Trip.conrad@hklaw.com Matthew.caplan@hklaw.com ALPHABET INC: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Supplemental Authority ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as J. L. et al v. Alphabet Inc. et al. (re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation), Case No. 5:23-cv-03440-EKL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to file the attached notice of supplemental authority. The supplemental authority is an academic paper published on Oct. 17, 2025 from the Department of Computer Science and AI Innovation Institute at Stony Brook University in conjunction with Columbia Law School, the School of Information Science, University of Michigan, and MIT's Initiative on the Digital Economy Tuhin Chakrabarty et al., Readers Prefer Outputs of AI Trained on Copyrighted Books over Expert Human Writers (Oct. 17, 2025), attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Authority attached herewith. Readers Prefer Outputs of AI Trained on Copyrighted Books over Expert Human Writers contains new information relevant to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class certification because it contains empirical evidence that is relevant to commonality, typicality, and predominance. Alphabet is a holding company, which engages in the business of acquisition and operation of different companies. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YW0veN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. Anne K. Davis, Esq. Joshua D. Samra, Esq. Gregory S. Mullens, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 1330 Broadway, Suite 630 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 445-4003 E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com adavis@bfalaw.com jsamra@bfalaw.com gmullens@bfalaw.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Cadio Zirpoli, Esq. Christopher K.L. Young, Esq. Elissa A. Buchanan, Esq. Evan A. Creutz, Esq. Aaron Cera, Esq. Louis Kessler, Esq. Alexander Y. Zeng, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1505 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com cyoung@saverilawfirm.com eabuchanan@saverilawfirm.com ecreutz@saverilawfirm.com acera@saverilawfirm.com lkessler@saverilawfirm.com azeng@saverilawfirm.com - and - Brian D. Clark, Esq. Laura M. Matson, Esq. Arielle S. Wagner, Esq. Consuela Abotsi-Kowu, Esq. Stephen J. Teti, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: bdclark@locklaw.com lmmatson@locklaw.com aswagner@locklaw.com cmabotsi-kowo@locklaw.com sjteti@locklaw.com - and - Matthew Butterick, Esq. BUTTERICK LAW 1920 Hillhurst Avenue, #406 Los Angeles, CA 90027 Telephone: (323) 968-2632 E-mail: mb@buttericklaw.com - and - Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Yana Hart, Esq. Mark I. Richards, Esq. Tracey Cowan, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com mrichards@clarksonlawfirm.com tcowan@clarksonlawfirm.com APPLE COMMUTER: Abuladze Seeks to Certify Concierge Worker Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAKHA ABULADZE, et al., v. APPLE COMMUTER INC., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-08684-MMG-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order: (1) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, certifying a Class defined as: "All concierge workers of Hotel Defendants with similar compensation structures and who are or were employed by Hotel Defendants on or after Aug. 23, 2015; (2) appointing Natia Duduchava and Tamar Zabakhidze as Class Representatives; (3) appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel; and (4) directing Hotel Defendants to produce to the Plaintiffs a Microsoft Excel list, in electronic format, of all Class Members' names, last known address, all known telephone numbers, dates of employment, and job titles; and (5) authorizing the mailing of the proposed Notice to all Class Members. Apple specializes in shuttle services and private car rentals. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xjMELB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Vano I. Haroutunian, Esq. BALLON STOLL P.C. 810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 405 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 575-7900 E-mail: vharoutunian@ballonstoll.com APPLE COMMUTER: Class Cert. Bid Response in Kakha Due Nov. 7 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kakha Abuladze et al., v. Apple Commuter, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-08684-MMG-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Tarnofsky entered an order as follows: -- Any responses to the motion for class certification shall be filed by Nov. 7, 2025. -- Any reply by the Plaintiff shall be filed by Nov. 15, 2025. On Oct. 24, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for provisional class certification. Apple is a transportation service provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WGSyAp at no extra charge.[CC] ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Mismanages 401(k) Plan, Porter Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- HUBERT PORTER, LOLITHA FARRAR and NAKIA WOODARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER (ILLINOIS), LLC, THE ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER CO. EMPLOYEES' 401(k) SAVINGS AND THRIFT PLAN BENEFITS COMMITTEE and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-13005 (N.D. Ill., October 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty of prudence and failure to adequately monitor other fiduciaries pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Plaintiffs bring this class action against the Defendants for breaching the duties they owed to the Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. Employees' 401(k) Savings and Thrift Plan, to them, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia: (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio, initially and on an ongoing basis, with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of performance. The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties of prudence. Arthur J. Gallagher (Illinois), LLC is an insurance brokerage and risk management services provider, with a principal place of business in Rolling Meadows, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 232-3080 Email: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com AT&T INC: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Pate Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- MARY PATE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02883-N (N.D. Tex., October 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. AT&T Inc. is a telecommunications company with its headquarters in Dallas, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. Jonathan Herrera, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 4131 North Central Expressway, Ste. 900 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (800) 237-1277 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com jjh@federmanlaw.com BAUSCH HEALTH: Conspires to Keep Monopoly Power, Value Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- VALUE DRUG COMPANY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAUSCH HEALTH COMPANIES INC., BAUSCH HEALTH IRELAND LTD., SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD, SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., and ACTAVIS LABORATORIES FL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00550 (D.R.I., October 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The case arises from the Defendants' anticompetitive scheme to maintain Salix's monopoly power in the relevant market by agreeing and adhering to promises comprising a conspiracy to restrict output, divide markets, and/or fix prices with respect to Xifaxan, a pharmaceutical drug, and generic Xifaxan. Value Drug Company, is a wholesale distributor of pharmaceuticals and health-related products based in Duncansville, Pennsylvania. Bausch Health Ireland Ltd. is a pharmaceutical company, with its principal place of business in Dublin, Ireland. Bausch Health Companies Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, with its U.S. headquarters in Bridgewater, New Jersey. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. is a pharmaceutical manufacturer, with its principal place of business in Bridgewater, New Jersey. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical manufacturer, with its principal place of business in Bridgewater, New Jersey. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is a pharmaceutical company, with its principal place of business in Tel Aviv, Israel. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, with its principal place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc., is a pharmaceutical company, with its principal place of business in Davie, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy K. Baldwin, Esq. WHELAN CORRENTE & FLANDERS LLP 100 Westminster Street, Suite 710 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 270-0330 Email: TBaldwin@whelancorrente.com - and - Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq. Dan Litvin, Esq. GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP 88 Pine Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 398-0055 Email: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com dlitvin@garwingerstein.com - and – Peter Kohn, Esq. Joseph Lukens, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI LLP 1617 JFK Blvd., Suite 1550 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 277-5770 Email: pkohn@faruqilaw.com jlukens@faruqilaw.com - and – David F. Sorensen, Esq. Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Email: dsorensen@bm.net ccoslett@bm.net - and – Susan Segura, Esq. David C. Raphael, Esq. Erin R. Leger, Esq. SMITH SEGURA RAPHAEL LEGER LLP 221 Ansley Blvd. Alexandria, LA 71303 Telephone: (318) 445-4480 Email: ssegura@ssrllp.com draphael@ssrllp.com eleger@ssrllp.com - and – Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq. Dan Chiorean, Esq. Thomas J. Maas, Esq. ODOM & DES ROCHES LLC 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2350 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 522-0077 Email: stuart@odrlaw.com dchiorean@odrlaw.com tmaas@odrlaw.com - and – Russell A. Chorush, Esq. Christopher M. First, Esq. William Collier, Esq. HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH LLP 609 Main Street, Suite 3200 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 221-2000 Email: rchorush@hpcllp.com cfirst@hpcllp.com wcollier@hpcllp.com - and – Steven L. Bloch, Esq. SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP One Landmark Square, 15th Floor Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 325-4491 Email: sbloch@sgtlaw.com BEAZER HOMES: Fogle Appeals Reconsideration Bid Order to 4th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICAH J. FOGLE, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part their motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled Micah J. Fogle, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Beazer Homes, LLC a/k/a Beazer Homes Corp., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00830-RMG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was transferred from the Berkeley County Court of Common Pleas to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, is brought against the Defendant for (1) negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, willfulness, and wantonness; (2) breach of warranty of workmanlike services, breach of warranty for fitness for a particular purpose, breach of warranty of merchantability and serviceability, and breach of warranty against latent defects; and (3) unfair trade practices. On Feb. 20, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge Richard M. Gergel granted on Aug. 21, 2025. The Court ruled that it was the Plaintiffs who violated the Purchase and Sale Agreement's (PSA) arbitration provision in the first place by suing in state court. By contrast, the Defendant has done nothing to waive its right to arbitrate the Plaintiffs' claims. Nor have the Plaintiffs shown that the Defendant's actions (removing this action and quickly moving to compel arbitration) have prejudiced the Plaintiffs. On Sept. 19, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration the Aug. 21 Order, which Judge Gergel granted in part and denied in part. The appellate case is entitled Micah Fogle v. Beazer Homes, LLC, Case No. 25-2282, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on October 23, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MICAH J. FOGLE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Amanda Morgan Blundy, Esq. English Hanahan Maull, Esq. BLUNDY LAW FIRM, LLC 297 Seven Farms Drive Charleston, SC 29492 Telephone: (843) 867-6050 Defendant-Respondent BEAZER HOMES, LLC is represented by: James Weatherholtz, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP P.O. Box 999 Charleston, SC 29402 Telephone: (843) 722-3400 BETSY ROSS: Underpays Certified Nursing Assistants, Sorrell Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ AMBER SORRELL and QUANEISHA WOODRIUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BETSY ROSS OPERATIONS, LLC, and any related entities, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-01501-BKS-ML (N.D.N.Y., October 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, and failure to provide annual wage notice and accurate wage statements. Plaintiffs Sorrell and Woodrium worked for the Defendants as Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) from 2023 until the present and from 2018 to August 2025, respectively. Betsy Ross Operations, LLC is a company that operates a nursing home and rehabilitation center in Rome, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan Files, Esq. Frank Gattuso, Esq. GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC The White House 7030 E. Genesee Street Fayetteville, NY 13066 Telephone: (315) 314-8000 Facsimile: (315) 446-7521 Email: rfiles@gclawoffice.com fgattuso@gclawoffice.com BH SECURITY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 22, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY MARRERO ALMONTE, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, v. BH SECURITY, LLC, d/b/a Brinks Home, Case No. 4:25-cv-00294-MTS (N.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Mark T. Steele entered a scheduling order for class certification issues: 1. Initial disclosures under Federal Procedure 26(a)(1): Nov. 7, 2025 2. Motions for joinder of additional parties &/or amendment to the pleadings: Jan. 16, 2026 3. Class certification discovery cutoff: May 22, 2026 4. The Plaintiff's class certification motion and briefing: June 22, 2026 5. The Defendant’s response to class certification: July 22, 2026 6. The Plaintiff's reply in support of class certification: Aug. 6, 2026 7. Class certification hearing at 10:00 A.M: Aug. 20, 2026 BH is a provider of residential and commercial security systems. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fA4Tr3 at no extra charge.[CC] BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Bid to Dismiss AAUP Class Action Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS, BRADLEY UNIVERSITY CHAPTER et al, v. BRADLEY UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:25-cv-01223-JEH-RLH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered an order as follows: -- the Motion to Dismiss is denied. -- The Motion for Stay of Discovery is granted, and discovery shall be stayed until the Court rules on the jurisdictional issues that it has ordered the parties to brief. -- The Court also stays the deadline for filing an Answer pending resolution of the jurisdictional issues. Therefore, the Court directs the Plaintiffs to show cause as to why Count One should not be dismissed either because the two Counts do not arise from a common nucleus of operative fact or because the state law claim in Count One substantially predominates over Count Two. The Plaintiffs’ brief in opposition to the show cause Order shall be filed within thirty days of this Order, and the Defendant shall file its Response 30 days thereafter In Count One, Plaintiffs claim that Bradley "breached its employment contracts with Plaintiffs and all Class members when it decided to terminate or not renew the contracts of approximately 38 faculty members in violation of the policies and procedures outlined in the Handbook for the termination and nonrenewal of faculty appointments" and when "it made the decision to terminate appointments before making every effort to place the faculty members concerned in other suitable positions." In Count Two, the Complaint alleges race discrimination on behalf of Professor Azab, a tenure-track employee. The Plaintiffs commenced this putative class action on June 4, 2025. On Sept. 2, 2025, the Defendant Bradley University filed a motion to dismiss and memorandum in support to which the Plaintiffs' filed their response on Sept. 16, 2025. Bradley is a private research institution in Peoria, IL. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B9KekT at no extra charge.[CC] CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Settlement Hearing Reset to Nov. 20 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fisk, et al., v. Board of Trustees of the California State University, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00173 (S.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 7, 2022), the Hon. Judge Todd W. Robinson entered an order resetting the hearing for the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Joint Motion for Class Certification for Nov. 20, 2025. The nature of suit states Title IX Educational Amendments 1992 - Sex Discrimination. CSU is a public university system in California comprising 22 campuses and seven off-campus centers. It is the largest public university system in the United States and serves over 461,000 students. CSU campuses offer a wide range of undergraduate and graduate programs.[CC] CALIFORNIA: Suit Seeks to Certify Print-Disabled Person Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND OF CALIFORNIA, CHRISTOPHER GRAY, RUSSELL DAWSON RAWLINGS, and VITA ZAVOLI, v. SHIRLEY N. WEBER, in her official capacity as California Secretary of State, Case No. 3:24-cv-01447-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Dec. 1, 2025, will move the Court, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order: (1) Certifying a class consisting of: "All persons with print disabilities, which prevent them from reading, marking, holding, handling, and/or manipulating a paper ballot, who are registered to vote in California"; (2) Appointing Named Plaintiffs California Council of the Blind, National Federation of the Blind of California, Christopher Gray, Russell Dawson Rawlings, and Vita Zavoli as class representatives; and (3) Appointing Disability Rights California, Disability Rights Advocates, and Brown, Goldstein & Levy LLP as Class Counsel. Class certification pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) will provide the most efficient and manageable method for addressing the discriminatory exclusion of voters with print disabilities from full and equal participation in the Vote-by-Mail Program statewide. The Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of themselves and the proposed class members against the California Secretary of State in her official capacity, for violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act , Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and California Government Code section 11135. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jk1H0P at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sean Betouliere, Esq. Shawna L. Parks, Esq. Michael Nunez, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES  2001 Center Street, Third Floor  Berkeley, CA 94704-1204  Telephone: (510) 665-8644  Facsimile: (510) 665-8511  E-mail: sbetouliere@dralegal.org    sparks@dralegal.org    mnunez@dralegal.org   - and - Frederick P. Nisen, Esq. Paul R. Spencer, Esq. Kendra J. Muller, Esq. Frederick P. Nisen, Esq. Desiree Robedeaux, Esq. Karie Lew, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA  530 B Street, Suite 400  San Diego, CA 92101-4426  Telephone: (619) 239-7861  Facsimile: (619) 239-7906  E-mail: paul.spencer@disabilityrightsca.org  kendra.muller@disabilityrightsca.org fred.nisen@disabilityrightsca.org  desiree.robedeaux@disabilityrightsca.org karie.lew@disabilityrightsca.org  - and - Eve Hill, Esq. Neel Lalchandani, Esq. Lauren J. Kelleher, Esq. BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY LLP  120 East Baltimore Street, Suite 2500  Baltimore, MD 21202-1633  Telephone: (410) 962-1030  Facsimile: (410) 385-0869  E-mail: ehill@browngold.com    nkl@browngold.com    lkelleher@browngold.com  CAMPBELL'S COMPANY: Faces Ripa Suit Over Potato Chips' False Labels ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROZALIYA RIPA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CAMPBELL'S COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05921 (E.D.N.Y., October 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the New York General Business Law and breach of express warranty. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Cape Cod Kettle Cooked Potato Chips. According to the complaint, the Defendant labeled the products with "No Artificial Colors, Flavors or Preservatives". However, the Defendant's claims are false because the products contain synthetic citric acid. Had the Plaintiff and the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased the products or would have paid less for them, says the suit. The Campbell's Company is a food company, with its principal place of business located in Camden, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. ARISOHN LLC 94 Blakeslee Rd. Litchfield, CT 06759 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Email: josh@arisohnllc.com CHEWY INC: Faces Wright Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAZMINE WRIGHT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHEWY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08810 (S.D.N.Y., October 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.chewy.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Chewy, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com CLAIRE DEMATTEIS: Evans' Bid for Leave to File SAC Tossed --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL EVANS, et al., v. DOC COMMISSIONER CLAIRE DEMATTEIS, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01663-EJW (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Wallach entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file second amended complaint is denied. 2. The complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Amendment is futile. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. The Plaintiffs' argument that they were treated differently from other inmates finds no support in this section, where every claim, in Plaintiffs' own words, applies to "other inmates" outside the Plaintiffs' class. Thus, the Plaintiffs' attempt to distinguish this case from past cases on this ground misses the mark. The Plaintiffs repeat the allegation that the Defendants had "authority to, and did, act in concert" with each other in withholding masks and instating other policies, but again, this is too conclusory to allege personal involvement without more. Finally, Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently support their argument that one of the Defendants' public statements evidences personal involvement. Plaintiffs fail to allege specific conduct by any of the Defendants, and therefore their attempts in their Reply Brief to distinguish this case from other cases are unpersuasive. The Plaintiffs' proposed amendments do not sufficiently allege personal involvement; therefore, they fail to cure the deficiencies from the first amended complaint for which they have already been granted leave to amend. Thus, the amendments proposed by the SAC are futile, warranting denial of Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend. The case is brought by a class of nearly a hundred individuals ("Plaintiffs"), either currently or formerly confined at the Howard R. Young Correctional Institution ("HRYCI"), against Delaware state officials ("Defendants") related to the Delaware Department of Corrections ("DOC") or HRYCI. On Dec. 8, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint as a class action. The Plaintiffs' proposed class is defined as: "All persons confined at HRYCI in 2020, 2021, and 2022, including as subclasses: (i) persons exposed to and formally diagnosed with COVID-19 while detained at HRYCI, and (ii) persons exposed to COVID-19 while detained at HRYCI that showed symptoms of COVID-19." On Nov. 14, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Oct. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DEoC8o at no extra charge.[CC] CLINT MILLER: Iasella Seeks to Reformulate Class Definition ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN IASELLA, for himself, and for others similarly situated, v. Clint Miller, Case No. t al. v. Miller Case No. 3:025-cv-00032-HRH Case 3:25-cv-00032-HRH (D. Alaska), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: The Plaintiff was inartful in formulating the class definition used in Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiff requests the Court to use the class definition as described in the Complaint. That definition is: "All persons, who entered into a contract with Defendant Clint Miller to act as a Hunting Guide in the State of Alaska at any time within the preceding 2 years from the filing of the Complaint, and continuing through the present, and who were not provided the guide service, and were not refunded the fees they paid to Defendant Miller." During discovery it was learned that Defendant had cancelled client hunting trips from at least as far back as 2020. For most, if not all of those canceled hunts, rather than refund the prepaid fees, Defendant rescheduled the hunts forward in time. It is believed the majority of these rescheduled hunts will ultimately fall within the 2 year statute of limitations. In trying to capture this situation, the class definition provided by Plaintiff in the Amended Certification Motion was overbroad. After careful consideration, it is believed that the original definition used in the Complaint adequately captures the above-described situation. For instance, a client who prepaid Defendant a fee in 2021 for hunting guide services, but whose hunt was canceled by Defendant and then rescheduled forward in time (perhaps multiple times) could fall within the 2 year statute of limitations. This is exactly the situation that Don Lauscher experienced: he had his hunt rescheduled three times from 2021 to 2022, to 2023, to 2024.2 In this situation, where although the original contract for services was made in 2021, the contract was reformulated in 2024, and thus falls within the 2 year statute of limitation. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w45tPM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tim Cook, Esq. COOK & ASSOCIATES 3901 Taiga Drive Anchorage, AK 99516 Telephone: (907) 336-5291 E-mail: AkLaw911@Outlook.com COMPLETE CLOTHING: Murphy Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMPLETE CLOTHING ACQUISITION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08768 (S.D.N.Y., October 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, and New York State General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.shopmattym.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text equivalent, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Complete Clothing Acquisition, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal CRANE LENDING: Wood Sues Over Illegal Rent-A-Tribe Lending Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM WOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRANE LENDING, LLC D/B/A CRANE FINANCE, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00122-DJH (W.D. Ky., October 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for is a class action against the Defendant for declaratory judgment and violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's engagement in a rent-a-tribe scheme wherein non-tribal payday lenders use a Native American tribe in order to avoid usury laws by invoking sovereign immunity. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to recover all amounts paid on him and other Class members' loans, as well as their costs and attorneys' fees. Crane Lending, LLC, doing business as Crane Finance, is a company that operates an online lending website, with its principal place of business in Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Lockaby, Esq. Abigail Catherine Wearden, Esq. Amanda M. Lockaby, Esq. LOCKABY PLLC 476 East High Street, Suite 200 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (859) 263-7884 Facsimile: (859) 406-3333 Email: mlockaby@lockabylaw.com awearden@lockabylaw.com alockaby@lockabylaw.com - and - Matthew J. Langley, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (773) 554-9354 Email: matt@almeidalawgroup.com DELOITTE CONSULTING: Class Settlement in Marchand Gets Initial OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marchand, et al v. Deloitte Consulting LLP, Case No. 1:24-cv-00554 (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge Melissa Dubose entered an order granting motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement: 1. The Court provisionally certifies the following settlement class for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to final certify it at the final approval stage: "All living individuals residing in the United States who were sent a notice of the Data Incident by the State of Rhode Island indicating that their Private Information may have been impacted in the Data Incident." 2. The Plaintiffs, Ronald J. Pannozzi, Paola Badlomar, Meredith Brandt, Monica Depina, Meghan Konopka, Joan Ratcliffe, and Renee Trigueiro are designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. 3. Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A and Danielle Perry of Mason LLP are designated as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The Court finds that these counsels are experienced and will adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class. 4. A Final Approval Hearing shall take place before the Honorable Melissa R. DubBose on Jan. 29, 2026, at 11:00 AM. Deloitte provides consulting services in the areas of human capital, strategy, audit, financial advisory, tax, management, and technology integration. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=It4Uch at no extra charge.[CC] DELOITTE CONSULTING: Class Settlement in Morales Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Morales v. Deloitte Consulting LLP, Case No. 1:25-cv-00010 (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge Melissa Dubose entered an order granting motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement: 1. The Court provisionally certifies the following settlement class for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to final certify it at the final approval stage: "All living individuals residing in the United States who were sent a notice of the Data Incident by the State of Rhode Island indicating that their Private Information may have been impacted in the Data Incident." 2. The Plaintiffs, Ronald J. Pannozzi, Paola Badlomar, Meredith Brandt, Monica Depina, Meghan Konopka, Joan Ratcliffe, and Renee Trigueiro are designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. 3. Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A and Danielle Perry of Mason LLP are designated as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The Court finds that these counsels are experienced and will adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class. 4. A Final Approval Hearing shall take place before the Honorable Melissa R. DubBose on Jan. 29, 2026, at 11:00 AM. Deloitte provides consulting services in the areas of human capital, strategy, audit, financial advisory, tax, management, and technology integration. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hDbqBA at no extra charge.[CC] DELOITTE CONSULTING: Class Settlement in Pannozzi Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONALD J. PANNOZZI, PAOLA BALDOMAR, MEREDITH BRANDT, MONICA DEPINA, MEGHAN KONOPKA, JOAN RATCLIFFE, and RENEE TRIGUEIRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP, Case No. 1:24-cv-00526 (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge Melissa Dubose entered an order granting motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement: 1. The Court provisionally certifies the following settlement class for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to final certify it at the final approval stage: "All living individuals residing in the United States who were sent a notice of the Data Incident by the State of Rhode Island indicating that their Private Information may have been impacted in the Data Incident." 2. The Plaintiffs, Ronald J. Pannozzi, Paola Badlomar, Meredith Brandt, Monica Depina, Meghan Konopka, Joan Ratcliffe, and Renee Trigueiro are designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. 3. Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A and Danielle Perry of Mason LLP are designated as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The Court finds that these counsels are experienced and will adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class. 4. A Final Approval Hearing shall take place before the Honorable Melissa R. DubBose on Jan. 29, 2026, at 11:00 AM, Deloitte provides consulting services in the areas of human capital, strategy, audit, financial advisory, tax, management, and technology integration. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y82KgN at no extra charge.[CC] DELOITTE CONSULTING: Class Settlement in Triguiero Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Triguiero v. Deloitte Consulting LLP, Case No. 1:25-cv-00023 (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge Melissa Dubose entered an order granting motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement: 1. The Court provisionally certifies the following settlement class for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to final certify it at the final approval stage: "All living individuals residing in the United States who were sent a notice of the Data Incident by the State of Rhode Island indicating that their Private Information may have been impacted in the Data Incident." 2. The Plaintiffs, Ronald J. Pannozzi, Paola Badlomar, Meredith Brandt, Monica Depina, Meghan Konopka, Joan Ratcliffe, and Renee Trigueiro are designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. 3. Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A and Danielle Perry of Mason LLP are designated as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The Court finds that these counsels are experienced and will adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class. 4. A Final Approval Hearing shall take place before the Honorable Melissa R. DubBose on Jan. 29, 2026, at 11:00 AM. Deloitte provides consulting services in the areas of human capital, strategy, audit, financial advisory, tax, management, and technology integration. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tdPtRM at no extra charge.[CC] DELOITTE CONSULTING: Settlement in Lucchetti Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lucchetti v. Deloitte Consulting LLP, Case No. 1:24-cv-00527 (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge Melissa Dubose entered an order granting motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement: 1. The Court provisionally certifies the following settlement class for settlement purposes only, finding it is likely to final certify it at the final approval stage: "All living individuals residing in the United States who were sent a notice of the Data Incident by the State of Rhode Island indicating that their Private Information may have been impacted in the Data Incident." 2. The Plaintiffs, Ronald J. Pannozzi, Paola Badlomar, Meredith Brandt, Monica Depina, Meghan Konopka, Joan Ratcliffe, and Renee Trigueiro are designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. 3. Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A and Danielle Perry of Mason LLP are designated as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The Court finds that these counsels are experienced and will adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class. 4. A Final Approval Hearing shall take place before the Honorable Melissa R. DubBose on Jan. 29, 2026, at 11:00 AM. Deloitte provides consulting services in the areas of human capital, strategy, audit, financial advisory, tax, management, and technology integration. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=02OXp5 at no extra charge.[CC] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Robertson Allowed Leave to File Class Brief ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERTSON, et al., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:24-cv-00656 (D.D.C. Filed March 7, 2024), the Hon. Judge Paul L. Friedman entered an order granting the Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief on Class Certification. The Clerk of Court is directed to file on the docket the Supplemental Brief that is attached to plaintiffs' motion [108-1], and all accompanying exhibits except [108-19]. The District may file a response to the Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief on or before Nov. 24, 2025. The nature of suit states American with Disabilities Act (ADA). District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River, bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia.[CC] EVENFLO COMPANY: Toney Sues Over Car Seats' Choking Risks for Kids ------------------------------------------------------------------ SAMANTHA TONEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00358 (S.D. Ohio, October 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Evenflo Revolve Slim 360 car seats. According to the complaint, the Defendant represented that the products are safe for children. In reality, the products carried a potential for choking hazards. The Defendant's proposed recall solution does not address the underlying cause of the recall or restore confidence that the Plaintiff and proposed Class members have with the safety of the product. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages. Evenflo Company, Inc. is an infant care and juvenile products, with its principal place of business in Miamisburg, Ohio. [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 Email: andrew.baker@bakerlawgroup.ne - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Email: pauldoolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Keller Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERIC KELLER is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Eric Keller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00409-TDS-LPA, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. In this putative class action, Plaintiff Eric Keller seeks recovery from Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for Experian's alleged failure to timely reinvestigate disputed information in his file. On July 27, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing on Nov. 4, 2024. On Sept. 23, 2025, Judge Thomas D. Schroeder entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Experian's motion for judgment on the pleadings, Keller's motion for leave to amend, and Experian's motion for a protective order and motion to quash Keller's request for entry are denied without prejudice. In sum, the Court finds that there is simply no party who has alleged an injury in fact that can fairly be traced to Experian's challenged conduct, specifically, its suspicious mail policy. Thus, dismissal is warranted. The appellate case is entitled Eric Keller v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 25-2294, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on October 24, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ERIC KELLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: David Chami, Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE LAW FIRM PLC 8095 North 85th Way Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Telephone: (480) 626-2359 - and - Jed Robert Nolan, Esq. Benjamin Matthew Sheridan, Esq. KLEIN & SHERIDAN 3566 Teays Valley Road Hurricane, WV 25266 Telephone: (304) 562-7111 - and - Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq. CONSUMER ATTORNEYS 2290 East Speedway Boulevard Tucson, AZ 85719 Telephone: (602) 807-1504 Defendant-Appellee EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. is represented by: Caren D. Enloe, Esq. SMITH DEBNAM NARRON DRAKE SAINTSING & MYERS, LLP P.O. Box 176010 Raleigh, NC 27619 - and - Christopher A. Hall, Esq. JONES DAY 110 North Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 - and - John Alexander Vogt, Esq. JONES DAY 3161 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92612 FCS SNEAKERS: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Solis Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERTO SOLIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FCS SNEAKERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05933 (E.D.N.Y., October 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.fcssneakers.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. FCS Sneakers, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com FLAGSHIP RESTAURANT: Court OKs Certification in "Hallman" --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Brittney Hallman, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Flagship Restaurant Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:24CV222 (D. Neb.), Senior United States District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska granted the Plaintiff's motion for certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Judge Bataillon certified an FLSA collective class action consisting of all people employed as servers/bartenders by Flagship Restaurant Group since June 14, 2021. The Court found the Plaintiff met her burden of establishing she and the collective class members were victims of a single decision, policy, or plan regarding alleged violations of the FLSA. Flagship, a Nebraska company, owns and operates a number of restaurant brands in several states, including twenty locations of Blue Sushi Sake Grill. Hallman is a former Flagship employee at the Blue Sushi in Kansas City, Missouri. During her employment, Hallman was a server and trainer. In her second amended complaint, she alleges Flagship's policies and practices regarding servers and bartenders working at its restaurant violate the FLSA. Hallman alleges she and other servers and bartenders received an hourly wage below the federal minimum wage to take a credit against tips received. Further, she alleges Flagship required the Plaintiff to engage in non-tip producing activities for more than 20 percent of her time at work. Hallman also alleges Flagship failed to properly pay overtime wages when tipped employees worked more than 40 hours per week. Hallman alleges Flagship required its servers and bartenders to share tips with other non-tipped employees facilitated through its automated Point of Sales System. The POS calculated the tips received via cash or credit card transactions and divided the total tips to servers/bartenders and other non-direct service employees such as food runners, server assistants, supports staff, and sushi chefs. Thus, the Plaintiff alleges servers and bartenders received less tips than guests directly gave them as gratuities for their service. The Plaintiff states she did not request Flagship to impose the foregoing tip pool policies and practices. The tip-sharing practices were designed, imposed, and administered by Flagship. Hallman alleges Flagship only verbally told its employees about the tip-sharing requirement, but the tip policy was neither mentioned in the employment manual nor posted in a conspicuous and accessible place at the restaurant. According to the Plaintiff, when other servers and bartenders complained about the tip pooling practices, Flagship's management would respond with statements such as: It's the policy and This is the way we do things. In support of her motion, Hallman submits her declaration along with the declarations of Cara Cumberford, Catherine Howard, Claire Hutson, and Brennen Zerbe. In her declaration, Hallman purports she was required to tip out 4% of total sushi sales to the sushi chefs, 5% of drink sales to the bar, and 1% of total sale to support staff. Hutson states in Austin, 1.25% of total sales went to server assistants such as food runners and busboys, 4% of bar sales went to the bar, and 5% of sushi sales went to the sushi chefs. Hallman explains that during any given shift she would work about one hour of non-tip generating side work before her shift, and during her shift, she would work about 10 to 20 percent of non-tip generating side work. Hutson states she worked about 20 to 30 percent of non-tip generating side work as a bartender, as opposed to only one to two hours before or after her shift as a server. Many of the employees allegedly did not get information regarding the tip pooling, aside from verbal confirmation. Even on occasions where employees, such as Hallman and Howard, asked for clarification from managers, the employees were dismissed or given no follow up. Further, Hutson and Zerbe allege they were explicitly told the tip pooling was mandatory, but the tip pooling policy was not listed in the employee handbooks or employment information. The Defendant opposes the motion asserting the Plaintiff's evidence fails to establish that all servers and bartender of every Flagship restaurant are similarly situated. Defendant emphasizes that its different restaurants across several states have different minimum wage, overtime requirements, and tipping arrangements. Flagship also argues its compensation, including tip pools, are different between restaurants depending on the type of restaurant and location. The Court notes some of the tasks listed by the declarants are restaurant specific such as restocking soy dishes, restocking chopsticks, wrapping soy sauce, and cutting cucumbers. However, many of the employees have other similar non-tip generating activities such as rolling silverware, cleaning, sweeping the floor, making tea/coffee, setting up tables, restocking linen, stocking napkins, wiping chairs, wiping tables, cleaning drains, and taking out the trash. Even if some tasks only apply to Blue Sushi, a significant number of other tasks could apply to any, or most, restaurants across the country. Judge Bataillon found all the declarants mentioned tipping out to other employees aside from sushi chefs. For instance, Hallman, Hutson, and Zerbe mention sharing tips with support staff and/or server assistants. Additionally, Cumberford and Howard state they shared tips with other non-service employees such as hosts. It is likely Flagship's other restaurants have support staff, server assistants, and/or hosts at other restaurants. Arguing in the alternative, Flagship contents the class should include only Blue Sushi employees. This is because out of all five declarants, only one of them has worked at another restaurant. However, the employee that worked at another restaurant, Cara Cumberford, alleges the wage and tip practices she saw at Blue Sushi were very similar to the wage and tip practices at Anthem. Hallman has satisfied her burden at the first stage of the certification process. Flagship's arguments in opposition to the collective class certification are the sort of merit-based inquiries that are properly addressed at the second stage, also known as the decertification. Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective class certification should be granted. The FLSA collective class action shall have an opt-in period of ninety days from the date of this order. The Court authorizes the Plaintiff to email and mail the Notice and Consent to Join Form to potential class members. The Court grants the request to post the Notice and Form in conspicuous locations at all relevant worksites during the ninety day opt in period. The Court denies Plaintiff's request to send the text message reminder. However, the Court grants the Plaintiff leave to email a reminder consisting of the Notice and Consent to Join Form for potential members who have not responded within thirty days before the end of the thirty-day opt-in period. Defendant shall provide to the Plaintiff the first and last name, last known mailing addresses, and email address, in an electronically manipulable format, such as a spreadsheet, within twenty-one days of the date of this order. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZPAmUB from PacerMonitor.com FLAGSHIP RESTAURANT: Lippold Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Cameron Lippold, Jessica Barry, and Scott Tomsons, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FLAGSHIP RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2025-LA-000496 was removed from the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court, DuPage County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois on Oct. 27, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-13079. On October 3, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Class/Collective Action Complaint and filed the Amended Class/Collective Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") on October 7, 2025. On October 7, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File the Amended Complaint.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: James Thompson, Esq. Stephen G. Mrowiec, Esq. LYNCH THOMPSON LLP 150 South Wacker, Suite 2550 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-445-4623 Email: jthompson@lynchthompson.com smrowiec@lynchthompson.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 FMGI INC: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Araujo v. FMGI, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-02028 (M.D. Fla., Filed Oct. 21, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). FMGI is a full-service general contractor.[CC] FORBIDDEN PLANET: Solis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERTO SOLIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORBIDDEN PLANET IP HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05934 (E.D.N.Y., October 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.fpnyc.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Forbidden Planet IP Holdings, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com FRESHREALM INC: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Dec. 4, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARA WREN, MELINDA THOMPSON, PATRICIA SIMMONS and DEMETRIOUS THOMAS on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. FRESHREALM, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-02063-K (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Ed Kinkeade entered a class certification scheduling order: 1. Pursuant to Local Rule 16.3(a), the parties to this case shall enter into settlement negotiations as early as possible. 2. The parties are ordered to complete mediation no later than March 2, 2026 and file a Joint Mediation Report describing the status of settlement negotiations no later than March 9, 2026. 3. All motions requesting leave to join parties or to amend pleadings shall be filed by Dec. 30, 2025. 4. The Plaintiffs' shall file their motion for class certification by Dec. 4, 2026. Responses to the Motion for class certification shall be filed by Jan. 22, 2027. Replies to the motion for class certification shall be filed by Feb. 17, 2027. 5. By Nov. 2, 2026 all discovery regarding class certification, including discovery concerning class certification expert witnesses, shall be completed. FreshRealm operates as a fresh meals company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5V7vZ0 at no extra charge.[CC] GEICO: Ching Seeks to Extend Class Cert Bid. Filing --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE CHING INSURANCE, INC., v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES' INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-03033-PX (D. Md.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting opposed motion for extension of case schedule: Requirement Dates The Plaintiffs' 26(a)(2) disclosures, Dec. 1, 2025 including expert report(s): The Plaintiffs' motion for class Dec. 1, 2025 Certification: The Defendants' 26(a)(2) disclosures, March 2, 2026 including expert report(s): The Defendants' response in opposition March 2, 2026 to the motion for class certification: The Plaintiffs' reply in support of May 29, 2026 motion for class certification: The Plaintiffs' rebuttal Rule 26(a)(2) May 29, 2026 Disclosures: Hearing on motion for class certification: July 29, 2026,or at the Court's earliest convenience thereafter The case is a complex commercial class action brought against Defendants by a GEICO insurance agency on behalf of itself, a putative nationwide class of current and former GEICO insurance agencies, and a putative nationwide class of former GEICO insurance agencies, and alleging claims for Breach of Contract – Termination (Count I), Unjust Enrichment – Termination and Renewal Commissions (Count II), Breach of Contract – Renewal Commissions (Count III), and Unjust Enrichment – Misappropriation of Commissions (Count IV). On July 14, 2025, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel class wide information. Government is an American vehicle insurance company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SZpA4I at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. John Tangren, Esq. Eaghan S. Davis, Esq. Diandra S. Debrosse Zimmerman, Esq. Eli Hare, Esq. Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq. Justin J. Hawal, Esq. Eviealle J. Dawkins, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 10 North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com jtangren@dicellolevitt.com edavis@dicellolevitt.com fu@dicellolevitt.com ehare@dicellolevitt.com kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com jhawal@dicellolevitt.com edawkins@dicellolevitt.com - and - Benjamin Crump, Esq. Gabrielle Higgins, Esq. Brendan H. Chandonnet, Esq. BEN CRUMP LAW, PLLC 122 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Telephone: (800) 691-7111 E-mail: ben@bencrump.com gabrielle@bencrump.com brendan@bencrump.com GENEDX HOLDINGS: Helo Securities Class Suit Discovery Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- GeneDx Holdings Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2025, that discovery is ongoing for Helo securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. On September 7, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, styled Helo v. Sema4 Holdings Corp., et al, 22-cv-1131 (D. Conn.) against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers. Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff, an amended complaint was filed on January 30, 2023. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on August 21, 2023, and that motion was granted on July 31, 2024. A second amended complaint was filed on September 13, 2024. As amended, the complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of the stockholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between January 18, 2022 and August 15, 2022. The second amended complaint does not reassert most of the earlier allegations, and purports to allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements about the abilities and potential of Centrellis, the Company's proprietary intelligence platform, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs. The Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was denied on June 23, 2025, and discovery in the case is underway. GeneDx Holdings Corp. through its subsidiaries Sema4 OpCo, Inc., formerly Mount Sinai Genomics Inc. and GeneDx, LLC, provides genomics-related diagnostic and information services and pursues genomics medical research. It provides a variety of genetic diagnostic tests, and screening solutions, and information with a focus on pediatrics, rare diseases for children and adults, and hereditary cancer screening. GKN DRIVELINE: Ayers Bid for Class Certification Tossed ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES AYERS, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:23-CV-581 (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Catherine Eagles entered an order that: 1. In Ayers v. GKN, 23-CV-581, a. The plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective certification, and motion for class certification are denied as to the pre 2020 proposed subcollectives and subclasses. A decision on the plaintiffs' motions to certify a class and conditionally certify a collective as to post-2020 claims is held in abeyance. b. The plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling of NCWHA claims on behalf of the putative class is denied to the extent it seeks tolling on behalf of the class back to events related to Mebane v. GKN, 18-CV 892, and granted to the extent that the statute of limitations for the putative collective members' post-2020 FLSA collective claims is equitably tolled from July 14, 2023, pending further order. 2. In Carson v. GKN, 23-CV-583, a. The plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective certification, and motion for class certification are denied as to the pre-2020 proposed subcollectives and subclasses. A decision on the plaintiffs' motions to certify a class and conditionally certify a collective as to post-2020 claims is held in abeyance. b. The plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling of NCWHA claims on behalf of the putative class is denied to the extent it seeks tolling on behalf of the class back to events related to Mebane v. GKN, 18-CV 892, and granted to the extent that the statute of limitations for the putative collective members' post-2020 FLSA collective claims is equitably tolled from July 14, 2023, pending further order. 3. In Ferges v. GKN, 23-CV-585, a. The plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective certification, and motion for class certification are denied as to the pre 2020 proposed subcollectives and subclasses. A decision on the plaintiffs' motions to certify a class and conditionally certify a collective as to post-2020 claims is held in abeyance. b. The plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling of NCWHA claims on behalf of the putative class is denied to the extent it seeks tolling on behalf of the class back to events related to Mebane v. GKN, 18-CV 892, and granted to the extent that the statute of limitations for the putative collective members' post-2020 FLSA collective claims is equitably tolled from July 14, 2023, pending further order. 4. The parties shall complete all discovery needed to address class and collective certification on the remaining claims and all fact discovery by Dec. 20, 2025. If the plaintiffs wish to pursue the "off-the-clock" claims on behalf of a post-2020 class or collective, they may file an amended motion, brief, and evidence, no later than Jan. 12, 2026, to which GKN may respond no later than Feb. 2, 2026. The plaintiffs may file a reply brief no later than March 13, 2026. 5. The Court will schedule a conference with counsel to address other scheduling and logistical matters, as time permits. The proposed pre-2020 subcollectives and subclasses are not suitable for collective and class resolution, and to that extent the motions for collective and class certification will be denied. The Court lacks sufficient information to reach a conclusion as to the post-2020 subcollective and subclass, so the remainder of those motions will be held open. The motions for equitable tolling of the statutes of limitations will be granted for putative post-2020 class and collective members, back to the date these three actions were filed, pending further order on collective and class certification. Otherwise, the motions for equitable tolling will be denied. The plaintiffs in these related actions are employees at plants operated by the defendant GKN Driveline North America in Mebane, Sanford, and Roxboro, North Carolina. They allege that GKN's wage and hour policies violate the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. GKN manufactures automotive parts. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JPObB5 at no extra charge.[CC] GKN DRIVELINE: Carson Bid for Class Certification Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN CARSON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:23-CV-583 (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Catherine Eagles entered an order that: 1. In Ayers v. GKN, 23-CV-581, a. The plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective certification, and motion for class certification are denied as to the pre 2020 proposed subcollectives and subclasses. A decision on the plaintiffs' motions to certify a class and conditionally certify a collective as to post-2020 claims is held in abeyance. b. The plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling of NCWHA claims on behalf of the putative class is denied to the extent it seeks tolling on behalf of the class back to events related to Mebane v. GKN, 18-CV 892, and granted to the extent that the statute of limitations for the putative collective members' post-2020 FLSA collective claims is equitably tolled from July 14, 2023, pending further order. 2. In Carson v. GKN, 23-CV-583, a. The plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective certification, and motion for class certification are denied as to the pre-2020 proposed subcollectives and subclasses. A decision on the plaintiffs' motions to certify a class and conditionally certify a collective as to post-2020 claims is held in abeyance. b. The plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling of NCWHA claims on behalf of the putative class is denied to the extent it seeks tolling on behalf of the class back to events related to Mebane v. GKN, 18-CV 892, and granted to the extent that the statute of limitations for the putative collective members' post-2020 FLSA collective claims is equitably tolled from July 14, 2023, pending further order. 3. In Ferges v. GKN, 23-CV-585, a. The plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective certification, and motion for class certification are denied as to the pre 2020 proposed subcollectives and subclasses. A decision on the plaintiffs' motions to certify a class and conditionally certify a collective as to post-2020 claims is held in abeyance. b. The plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling of NCWHA claims on behalf of the putative class is denied to the extent it seeks tolling on behalf of the class back to events related to Mebane v. GKN, 18-CV 892, and granted to the extent that the statute of limitations for the putative collective members' post-2020 FLSA collective claims is equitably tolled from July 14, 2023, pending further order. 4. The parties shall complete all discovery needed to address class and collective certification on the remaining claims and all fact discovery by Dec. 20, 2025. If the plaintiffs wish to pursue the "off-the-clock" claims on behalf of a post-2020 class or collective, they may file an amended motion, brief, and evidence, no later than Jan. 12, 2026, to which GKN may respond no later than Feb. 2, 2026. The plaintiffs may file a reply brief no later than March 13, 2026. 5. The Court will schedule a conference with counsel to address other scheduling and logistical matters, as time permits. The proposed pre-2020 subcollectives and subclasses are not suitable for collective and class resolution, and to that extent the motions for collective and class certification will be denied. The Court lacks sufficient information to reach a conclusion as to the post-2020 subcollective and subclass, so the remainder of those motions will be held open. The motions for equitable tolling of the statutes of limitations will be granted for putative post-2020 class and collective members, back to the date these three actions were filed, pending further order on collective and class certification. Otherwise, the motions for equitable tolling will be denied. The plaintiffs in these related actions are employees at plants operated by the defendant GKN Driveline North America in Mebane, Sanford, and Roxboro, North Carolina. They allege that GKN's wage and hour policies violate the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. GKN manufactures automotive parts. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HPLpyP at no extra charge.[CC] GKN DRIVELINE: Ferges Bid for Class Certification Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMIKA FERGES, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:23-CV-585 (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Catherine Eagles entered an order that: 1. In Ayers v. GKN, 23-CV-581, a. The plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective certification, and motion for class certification are denied as to the pre 2020 proposed subcollectives and subclasses. A decision on the plaintiffs' motions to certify a class and conditionally certify a collective as to post-2020 claims is held in abeyance. b. The plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling of NCWHA claims on behalf of the putative class is denied to the extent it seeks tolling on behalf of the class back to events related to Mebane v. GKN, 18-CV 892, and granted to the extent that the statute of limitations for the putative collective members' post-2020 FLSA collective claims is equitably tolled from July 14, 2023, pending further order. 2. In Carson v. GKN, 23-CV-583, a. The plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective certification, and motion for class certification are denied as to the pre-2020 proposed subcollectives and subclasses. A decision on the plaintiffs' motions to certify a class and conditionally certify a collective as to post-2020 claims is held in abeyance. b. The plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling of NCWHA claims on behalf of the putative class is denied to the extent it seeks tolling on behalf of the class back to events related to Mebane v. GKN, 18-CV 892, and granted to the extent that the statute of limitations for the putative collective members' post-2020 FLSA collective claims is equitably tolled from July 14, 2023, pending further order. 3. In Ferges v. GKN, 23-CV-585, a. The plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective certification, and motion for class certification are denied as to the pre 2020 proposed subcollectives and subclasses. A decision on the plaintiffs' motions to certify a class and conditionally certify a collective as to post-2020 claims is held in abeyance. b. The plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling of NCWHA claims on behalf of the putative class is denied to the extent it seeks tolling on behalf of the class back to events related to Mebane v. GKN, 18-CV 892, and granted to the extent that the statute of limitations for the putative collective members' post-2020 FLSA collective claims is equitably tolled from July 14, 2023, pending further order. 4. The parties shall complete all discovery needed to address class and collective certification on the remaining claims and all fact discovery by Dec. 20, 2025. If the plaintiffs wish to pursue the "off-the-clock" claims on behalf of a post-2020 class or collective, they may file an amended motion, brief, and evidence, no later than Jan. 12, 2026, to which GKN may respond no later than Feb. 2, 2026. The plaintiffs may file a reply brief no later than March 13, 2026. 5. The Court will schedule a conference with counsel to address other scheduling and logistical matters, as time permits. The proposed pre-2020 subcollectives and subclasses are not suitable for collective and class resolution, and to that extent the motions for collective and class certification will be denied. The Court lacks sufficient information to reach a conclusion as to the post-2020 subcollective and subclass, so the remainder of those motions will be held open. The motions for equitable tolling of the statutes of limitations will be granted for putative post-2020 class and collective members, back to the date these three actions were filed, pending further order on collective and class certification. Otherwise, the motions for equitable tolling will be denied. The plaintiffs in these related actions are employees at plants operated by the defendant GKN Driveline North America in Mebane, Sanford, and Roxboro, North Carolina. They allege that GKN's wage and hour policies violate the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. GKN manufactures automotive parts. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BWTXWM at no extra charge.[CC] GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE: Slaughter Suit Over Compromised Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAYDA SLAUGHTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01191-O (N.D. Tex., October 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach March 6, 2025 and March 13, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Goosehead Insurance Agency, LLC is a national independent insurance agency based in Westlake, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emil Lippe, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LIPPE & ASSOCIATES Park Place at Turtle Creek 2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1250 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 855-1850 Facsimile: (214) 720-6075 Email: emil@texaslaw.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 609-6910 Facsimile: (267) 609-6955 Email: jerry@lcllp.com GREEN KITCHEN: Bid for Conditional Collective Cert. Due Nov. 18 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDILBERTO RUIZ, on behalf of himself, v GREEN 70 LLC d/b/a GREEN KITCHEN et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-05777-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Furman entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order: -- Any motion to amend or to join additional parties shall be filed no later than Mar. 31, 2026. -- Initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) shall be completed no later than Nov. 6, 2025. -- All fact discovery shall be completed no later than Oct. 23, 2026. -- The Plaintiff shall file a motion for conditional collective action certification no later than Nov. 18, 2025. Any opposition shall be filed by Dec. 4, 2025. Any reply shall be filed by Dec. 11, 2025. -- The next pretrial conference is scheduled for Jan. 22, 2026 at 3:00 p.m. Green is an enterprise that processes both fresh, dry and precooked food. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nsyfts at no extra charge.[CC] GTS LIVING: Renewed Bid for Class Cert in Sharpe Due Feb. 27, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Delaney Sharpe et al v. GTs Living Foods, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-10920-FMO-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order that: 1. Any remaining discovery (related solely to the newly added named plaintiffs) shall be completed by Dec. 29, 2025. 2. Any renewed motion for class certification shall be filed no later than Feb. 27, 2026, and noticed for hearing regularly under the Local Rules. Any untimely or non-conforming motion will be denied. The motion for class certification shall comply with the requirements set forth in the Court's Order Re: Motions for Class Certification issued March 20, 2020. 3. The court will set dates and deadlines for summary judgment, trial, the pretrial conference, and the parties' pretrial filings after the resolution of the motion for class certification. GTs is a family-owned company known for its hand-crafted, fully living, fermented foods. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v5rvJt at no extra charge.[CC] HESS BAKKEN: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Penman Due Jan. 16, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Penman v. Hess Bakken Investments II, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00097 (D.N.D., Filed Jun 10, 2022), the Hon. Judge Daniel L. Hovland entered an order granting motion to amend/correct scheduling order: -- Discovery due by Nov. 15, 2025 -- Discovery Motions due by Dec. 12, 2025 -- Plaintiffs Expert Witness Disclosures and Reports due by Dec. 19, 2025 -- Defendant Expert Witness Disclosures and Reports due by Feb. 6, 2026 -- Plaintiffs Rebuttal Expert Disclosures due by March 6, 2026 -- Class Certification Motion due by Jan. 16, 2026 The nature of suit Diversity-Other Contract.[CC] HIGHLANDS BROADWAY: Baldwin Sues Over Physical Barriers ------------------------------------------------------- Carolyn Baldwin, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HIGHLANDS BROADWAY OPCO LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03376 (D. Colo., Oct. 25, 2025), is brought based upon Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access the property and violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"). The Plaintiff has visited the Property twice before as a customer and advocate for the disabled. The Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property within six months after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of the revisit is to be a return customer to Fascinations and Honey Baked Ham, to determine if and when the Property is made accessible and to substantiate already existing standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes. The Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Property to purchase goods and/or services as a return customer as well as for Advocacy Purposes but does not intend to re-expose herself to the ongoing barriers to access and engage in a futile gesture of visiting the public accommodation known to Plaintiff to have numerous and continuing barriers to access, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. HIGHLANDS BROADWAY OPCO LLC, is the owner or co-owner of the real property and improvements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Phone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com HOYT ARCHERY: Close Suit Transferred to D. Colorado --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Shane Close, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HOYT ARCHERY, INC.; ARCHERY TRADE ASSOCIATION, INC.; BOWTECH INC.; BPS DIRECT, LLC d/b/a BASS PRO SHOPS; CABELA'S LLC; DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.; JAY'S SPORTS, INC. d/b/a/ JAY'S SPORTING GOODS; KINSEY'S OUTDOORS, INC.; LANCASTER ARCHERY SUPPLY, INC.; MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.; NEUINTEL LLC d/b/a PRICESPIDER f/k/a ORIS INTELLIGENCE; PRECISION SHOOTING EQUIPMENT, INC.; and TRACKSTREET, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00617 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, 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-03414-PAB-TPO to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Hoyt Archery -- https://hoyt.com/ -- is an American manufacturer of recurve and compound bows located in Salt Lake City, Utah.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark W. Pugsley, esq. RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER PC P.O. Box 45385 36 South State Street, Suite 1400 Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0385 Phone: (801) 532-1500 Fax: (801) 532-7543 Email: mpugsley@rqn.com HYATT CORP: Class Cert Expert Disclosure in Jimenez Due Dec. 23 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLOR JIMENEZ, v. HYATT CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 2:23-cv-03028-TLN-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Nunley entered an order granting the Plaintiff Flor Jimenez's Ex Parte Application for an Order Clarifying Expert Disclosure Deadlines or, Alternatively, Extending Expert Disclosure Deadlines in Accordance with the Court’s Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order. The fact discovery and expert disclosure deadlines are extended as follows: -- The fact discovery cut off is Oct. 24, 2025 -- The expert disclosure deadline for class certification purposes due Dec. 23, 2025 -- The deadline for supplemental expert designations is Jan. 22, 2026. On Dec. 28, 2023, the Plaintiff filed her Complaint alleging claims for: (1) violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and (2) violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. On March 7, 2024, the Court entered an initial pretrial scheduling order. Hyatt is a multinational hospitality company that manages, franchises, and owns hotels, resorts, and vacation properties globally. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zpDq7I at no extra charge.[CC] HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA: Hartman Sues Over Systematic Defects ----------------------------------------------------------- Peryl Hartman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a California corporation; HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, a Korean corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-10330 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 27, 2025), is brought against Defendants for systematic defects affecting the 2023-2025 Hyundai Palisade vehicles (the "Class Vehicles"). The Class Vehicles suffer from at least three dangerous and pervasive defects: a dashboard defect where shiny trim on the dashboard reflects onto the windshield causing rainbow-shape glare, prismatic distortion, and visibility obstruction under various weather and lighting conditions, including sunny, cloudy, and overcast conditions ("Dashboard Reflection Defect"); and a trunk release system failure affecting the key fob remote release, the interior trunk release button, and the exterior trunk-mounted release button ("Trunk Release Defect"); and air-conditioning system failure ("AC Defect") (collectively, the "Defects"). These Defects pose serious safety hazards and substantially impair the use, value, and safety of the Class Vehicles. The Dashboard Reflection Defect creates dangerous visual distortions from the shiny dashboard trim reflecting onto the windshield, obstructing visibility and impairing a driver's ability to see clearly in various weather and lighting conditions. The Trunk Release Defect renders the vehicles unreliable, with the trunk failing to open in approximately one out of every ten to twelve attempts across all three release mechanisms. The AC Defect renders the vehicles uncomfortable and potentially unsafe. The Defendants have known or should have known about these Defects through pre-release testing, post-sale reports, warranty claims, customer complaints, and dealership repair records, yet have failed to disclose these Defects to consumers and have failed to provide adequate repairs or remedies. When customers report these issues, Defendants' dealers dismiss the problems as "designed like this from the manufacturer," refusing to attempt repairs or provide remedies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff leased a new 2025 Hyundai Palisade. The Defendants design, manufacture, market, distribute, sell, lease, and warrant the Hyundai Palisade vehicles throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason M. Ingber, Esq. Serach B. Shafa, Esq. INGBER LAW GROUP 3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 805-8373 Email: ji@jasoningber.com ss@jasoningber.com INMARKET MEDIA: Experts Disclosure in Lionetta Due Dec. 4, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bernadette Lionetta, et al., v. InMarket Media, LLC et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-11170-JEK (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge entered a scheduling order: -- Initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) and by the Court's notice of scheduling conference must be completed by Nov. 6, 2025. -- All requests for production of documents and interrogatories must be served by Sept. 15, 2026. -- All discovery, other than expert discovery, must be completed by Oct. 30, 2026. -- The Plaintiffs' opening brief and disclosure of experts to be filed by Dec. 4, 2026. The Defendants' opposition brief, disclosure of experts and any Daubert motions to be filed by Jan. 18, 2027. The Plaintiff(s)' reply in support of class certification and any opposition to Daubert motions to be filed by March 4, 2027. The Defendant(s)' reply in support of Daubert motions and opposition to plaintiffs' Daubert motions to be filed by March 25, 2027. The Plaintiffs' trial reply in support of Daubert motions to be filed by April 15, 2027. InMarket operates as a digital advertising agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7fwdaw at no extra charge.[CC] J A ALEXANDER: Parties Seeks Collective Settlement Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTIAN ROMERO MONTERO, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by J A ALEXANDER, INC., WEST ESSEX CONSTRUCTION, INC., MARIA REBIMBAS, individually, and JOSEPH DOMINICK REBIMBAS, individually, v. J A ALEXANDER, INC., WEST ESSEX CONSTRUCTION, INC., MARIA REBIMBAS, individually, and JOSEPH DOMINICK REBIMBAS, individually, Case No. 2:23-cv-21679-JRA (D.N.J.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order will move the court, on Nov. 17, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., for preliminary approval of the parties' joint motion for class and collective action settlement. The Defendant is a construction company, specializing in concrete, earthwork. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q5KP6y at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Glenn, Esq. Jodi Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com The Defendants are represented by: Molly Hurley Kellett, Esq. CONNELL FOLEY, LLP 56 Livingston Avenue Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973)535-0500 E-mail: mkellett@connellfoley.com JACKSON-MITCHELL: Rodriguez Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Juan Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Jackson-Mitchell, Inc., Case No. 25CV06343 was removed from the Sonoma County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 24, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-09173 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights. Jackson-Mitchell, Inc. was founded in 1934. The Company's line of business includes processing fluid milk and cream, and related products.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. JILL ACQUISITION: Appeals Reconsideration Bid Order to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ JILL ACQUISITION, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled Annette Cody, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jill Acquisition, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00937-TWR-BJW, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, which was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, is brought against the Defendant for alleged civil rights violation. On April 21, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On May 12, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss first amended complaint, which Judge Todd W. Robinson denied on June 30, 2025. On July 28, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of the June 30 Order, which Judge Robinson denied on Sept. 30, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Cody v. Jill Acquisition, LLC, Case No. 25-6674, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 22, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 27, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on December 1, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on December 31, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee ANNETTE CODY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP 4100 Newport Place Drive, Suite #800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Defendant-Appellant JILL ACQUISITION, LLC is represented by: P. Craig Cardon, Esq. Jay T. Ramsey, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP 350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 1600, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Alyssa Sones, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 JOHN O'BANNON: Must File Reply Brief by Nov. 20 ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TATI ABU KING, et al., V. JOHN O'BANNON, in his official capacity as Chairman of the State Board of Elections for the Commonwealth of Virginia, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00408-JAG (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. entered an order setting the following briefing schedule: The plaintiffs shall file their brief by Thursday, Nov. 6, 2025. The defendants shall file their brief by Thursday, Nov. 20, 2025. Finally, the plaintiffs shall reply to the defendants' brief by Thursday, Dec. 4, 2025 A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NFqOzF at no extra charge.[CC] JP MORGAN CHASE: Giglio Sues Over Unlawful Debt Communication ------------------------------------------------------------- Soraya Giglio and Charles Albert individually, and on behalf of all other consumers v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Case No. 4:25-cv-00451-AW-MAF (N.D. Fla., Oct. 27, 2025), is brought for damages arising from Defendant's violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (hereinafter "FCCPA"), as a result of the Defendant Unlawful Debt Communication. In an attempt to collect the debt, on several occasions in 2024 and 2025 Defendant sent Plaintiffs communications during the hours of 9pm-8am. In doing so, Defendant violated prohibited practices of the FCCPA, by "Communicating with the debtor between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. in the debtor's time zone without the prior consent of the debtor." The Plaintiffs did not consent to receive communications during these prohibited times, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs Giglio and Albert obtained a mortgage, which is serviced by JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., is a business entity incorporated in Delaware, that regularly conducts business in the Northern District of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Fornaro, Esq. MATTHEW FORNARO, P.A. 11555 Heron Bay Boulevard, Ste. 200 Coral Springs, FL 33076 Phone: (954) 324-3651 Email: mfornaro@fornarolegal.com KRISTI NOEM: Petitioners' Amended Bid for Prelim. Injunction OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFERSON DOMINGUEZ-LARA, et al., v. KRISTI NOEM, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01553-RFB-BNW (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Richard Boulware, II entered an order granting the Petitioners' Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction. As such, the Court finds the balance of the equities and public interest "tip sharply towards" Petitioners. Therefore, even under a lesser showing that Petitioners have raised only "serious questions going to the merits" of their challenge to their detention under the INA and Constitution, Petitioners are entitled to a preliminary injunction. Respondents do not argue that Petitioners release pursuant to the IJs orders would be costly, so the Court declines to set bond beyond the amount imposed by the IJs. Petitioner Jefferson Dominguez-Lara is currently detained at the Nevada Southern Detention Center (NSDC). On July 21, 2025, an Immigration Judge (IJ) granted him a $3,000 bond, which Department of Homeland Security (DHS) automatically and unilaterally stayed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. section 1003.18(i)(2). A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ihxmI9 at no extra charge.[CC] LIBERTY MUTUAL: Class Fact Discovery Due April 24, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crystal Lopez, v. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-00629-DLR (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Rayes entered an order that, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, Plaintiff shall file her First Amended Complaint within 5 days of the date of the Order. The Court further entered an order that: -- Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is denied as moot. -- The parties' joint motion to extend case schedule is granted. The case schedule shall be amended as follows: Event Deadline Class fact discovery cut off: April 24, 2026 The Plaintiff to disclose all persons May 20, 2026 whom they may call to trial to present evidence under FRE 702, 703, 704, 705: Motion for class certification: May 20, 2026 Response to motion for class certification: Aug. 12, 2026 Reply in support of motion for class Sept. 23, 2026 certification: The Plaintiff to disclose all persons Sept. 23, 2026 providing rebuttal expert testimony: Liberty is a property and casualty insurer. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wknx8q at no extra charge.[CC] LITTLE CAESAR: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Dec. 19 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE CUEVAS, DORA MEZA DE CASTILLO, and GLORIA HERNANDEZ on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, v. LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC.; and DOES through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-03166-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the case schedule as follows. 1. Responses to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion due by Dec. 19, 2025; 2. Replies due by Feb. 13, 2026; and 3. Motion for class certification hearing set for March 17, 2026. On Sept. 2, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification. As part of the Plaintiffs'’ Motion, Plaintiffs submitted the declarations of 13 class member declarants and two retained experts. On Sept. 18, 2025, the Parties filed a joint stipulation seeking to modify the class certification schedule. Little is the American multinational operator of the Little Caesars pizza restaurant chain. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hohx6I at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Yablonovich, Esq. Monica Balderrama, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH 9465 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 300 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2511 Telephone: (310) 286-0246 Facsimile: (310) 407-5391 E-mail: Mark@Yablonovichlaw.com Monica@Yablonovichlaw.com - and - Melissa Grant, Esq. Bevin Allen Pike, Esq. Daniel Jonathan, Esq. Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1860 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Ellen M. Bronchetti, Esq. Lindsay E. Hutner, Esq. Priya E. Singh, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 12830 El Camino Real, Suite 350 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (619) 848-2523 E-mail: Ellen.Bronchetti@gtlaw.com Lindsay.Hutner@gtlaw.com Priya.Singh@gtlaw.com LIVE NATION: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Skot Heckman, Luis Ponce, Jeanene Popp, and Jacob Roberts, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., and Ticketmaster LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00047-GW-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wu entered an order granting the Defendants' application for leave to file under seal portions of the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of co-lead class counsel. Live is an American multinational entertainment company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aJ8ieF at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Timothy L. O'Mara, Esq. Andrew M. Gass, Esq. Alicia R. Jovais, Esq. Samuel R. Jeffrey, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111-6538 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 Facsimile: (415) 395-8095 E-mail: tim.o'mara@lw.com andrew.gass@lw.com alicia.jovais@lw.com sam.jeffrey@lw.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Expert Discovery in Alvarez Due Oct. 16, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel Alvarez et al., v. Los Angeles County et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01035-ODW-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered a scheduling and case management order: Trial at 9:00 a.m. Feb. 9, 2027 Hearing on Motions in Limine at 1:30 p.m. Feb. 1, 2027 Final Pretrial Conference at 1:30 p.m. Jan. 11, 2027 Expert Discovery Cutoff Oct. 16, 2026 Deadline to Hear Motion to Amend Feb. 10, 2026 Pleadings or Add Parties: A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=19MK2M at no extra charge.[CC] LOW TECH: Faces Murphy Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOW TECH TOY CLUB, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08769 (S.D.N.Y., October 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, and New York State General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.thewoobles.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text equivalent, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Low Tech Toy Club, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal MARDER TRAWLING: Faces Perez Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------------- MAXIMILIANO DIAZ PEREZ, LORENZO SUAR PANJOJ, MARIA LUCRECIA TZAMPOP GOMEZ, YOHANGLY MISHELL GARCIA MENDEZ and MAILY ADRIANA VELASQUEZ MORALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MARDER TRAWLING, INC., FRANCISCO IXCOTOYAC DIONICIO, individually, and WORKFORCE UNLIMITED, INC. and ANDREW WILKE, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-13129-LTS (D. Mass., October 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Massachusetts Temporary Workers Right to Know Law, and Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law including unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, unlawful extorted kickback deductions, unlawful excessive ride charge deductions, failure to provide check stubs and wage notice. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as plant workers from January 1, 2021 to May 27, 2025. Workforce Unlimited, Inc. is a recruitment company doing business in Massachusetts. Marder Trawling, Inc. is a seafood processing plant operator, located at 57 Hassey Street in New Bedford, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Claudia V. Torres Patina, Esq. Keally Cieslik, Esq. JUSTICE AT WORK 33 Harrison Ave., #501 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 865-8419 Email: kcieslik@jatwork.org ctorres@jatwork.org - and - Christopher J. Williams, Esq. WORKERS' LAW OFFICE 1341 W. Fullerton Ave., Suite 147 Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (312) 725-3696 Email: cwilliams@workers-law-office.com - and - Keren Salim, Esq. GRASSROOTS LAW & ORGANIZING FOR WORKERS 1 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1275 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (888) 610-7752 Email: keren@glow.law MARYLAND: Faces Williams Suit Over Collection of Usurious Loans --------------------------------------------------------------- MARCIA WILLIAMS, DAVID CIOTTI, TOWANNA DAVISON, MICHAEL GOETTING, TERRI EDGELL, JESSE WILSON, WHITNEY EVANS, and JESSIE ESPINOZA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FLAMAN MCCLOUD, JR., NICK JACK, ALIYA PONCE, VIVIAN MCCLOUD, BEN RAY III, and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-03489-DLB (D. Md., October 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and Licensing and Usury Laws, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendants' making and collection of unlawful loans from online lending entities purportedly owned and operated by the Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians, a federally recognized Native American tribe. These loans impose triple-digit interest rates, exponentially higher than the interest rate cap permitted by laws in nearly every state. According to the complaint, the Defendants violated RICO by entering into a series of agreements to conspire to violate Sections 1962(b)-(c), including but not limited to: (1) various loan and security agreements with third party investors; (2) agreements related to the purchasing of shares with respect to the unlawful loans; and (3) authorization of the usurious loan agreements entered into with the Plaintiffs and other Class members. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com MCKESSON CORP: True Health to File Renewed Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRUE HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC, INC. and MCLAUGHLIN CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATES, INC., Individually and as the Representatives of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, v. MCKESSON CORPORATION, MCKESSON TECHNOLOGIES INC. and JOHN DOES 1- 10, Case No. 4:13-cv-02219-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Jan. 22, 2026, will present the second renewed motion for class certification before the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam. The Plaintiffs seek entry of an order appointing the Plaintiff, McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. as the class representative, appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel, and certifying the following class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3): "All persons or entities who received faxes from "McKesson" from Sept. 2, 2009, to May 11, 2010, offering "Medisoft," "Lytec," "Practice Partner," or "Revenue Management Advanced" software or "BillFlash Patient Statement Service," where the faxes do not inform the recipient of the right to "opt out" of future faxes, and whose fax numbers are listed in Exhibit A to McKesson's Supplemental Response to Interrogatory Regarding Prior Express Invitation or Permission, but not in Exhibit B or Exhibit C to McKesson's Response to Interrogatory Regarding Prior Express Invitation or Permission." On Aug. 13, 2019, the Court entered its Order denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting the Plaintiffs' First Renewed Motion for Class Certification. On June 20, 2025, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's class-certification rulings, holding that the Hobbs Act does not require a federal court to follow the FCC's interpretations of the TCPA, that the Amerifactors Bureau Ruling in particular is not binding on this Court, and that this Court should interpret the TCPA's definition of "telephone facsimile machine" using "ordinary principles of statutory interpretation, affording appropriate respect to the agency's interpretation." McKesson distributes pharmaceuticals and provides health information technology, medical supplies, and health management tools. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZuD3qe at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Glenn L. Hara, Esq. Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: ghara@andersonwanca.com bwanca@andersonwanca.com - and - Robert C. Schubert, Esq. Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq. Dustin L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St., Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law wjonkcheer@sjk.law dschubert@sjk.law MCKESSON MEDICAL: Court Extends Class Cert Deadline --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bertha Gabriela Guzman Morales v. McKesson Medical-Surgical, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00450-MWC-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered an order denying the Plaintiff's ex parte application to extend the class certification deadline. "A scheduling order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered," and the Plaintiff bears the burden of showing good cause for the Court to grant this extension. As the Plaintiff failed to meet that burden here, the Court cannot grant the requested extension. The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the Mission Power factors to justify ex parte relief. As an initial matter, because the class certification deadline had already passed by the time Plaintiff filed the Application, it is not clear that Plaintiff’s cause would be irreparably prejudiced if the Court heard the motion according to regularly noticed procedures. The Plaintiff identifies several extensions that it granted Defendant over the last several months, as well as Defendant’s delay in responding to Plaintiff’s correspondence. See generally App. Even accepting Plaintiff’s timeline as true, Plaintiff never moved to compel Defendant to respond more quickly to its discovery requests, which showcases a lack of diligence. This case centers on allegations that Defendant violated California employment law. On Jan. 7, 2025, the Plaintiff timely opted out of a prior class action settlement that Defendant reached in Colinayo et al. v. McKesson Medical-Surgical, Inc., Placer County Superior Court Case No. S-CV-0049039. On Feb. 14, 2025, the Defendant removed the Plaintiff's case from San Berardino County Superior Court to this District. McKesson is a distributor of medical supplies, durable medical equipment, surgical supplies, medical lab supplies, and more. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lKtzMG at no extra charge.[CC] METAL WARE: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------ Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Metal Ware Corporation d/b/a NESCO, Case No. 0:25-cv-04119 (D. Minn., Oct. 27, 2025), is brought arising because the Defendant's Website (www.nesco.com) is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"). As a consequence of Plaintiffs experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on their behalf, Plaintiffs found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiffs full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiffs would like to, intend to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiffs and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are and have been legally blind and are therefore disabled. The Defendant offers cooking and food preservation supplies for sale including, but not limited to, canning equipment, dehydrating equipment, small appliances, meat processing equipment, vacuum sealers, roaster ovens, parts, accessories and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com MID AMERICA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 1, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as F.C., L.H., M.M., KIMBERLY STEAKLE, SUSAN OAKES, ASHLEY BUEHLER, MUKHLISA ISKANDAROVA, CHELSEA ROTH, SARAH FRAUNDORFER and her minor child I.F., TERESA MORE, and JENNETTE HANSEN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MID AMERICA PHYSICIAN SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00685-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Roseann Ketchmark entered a scheduling and trial order as follows: Deadlines Joinder of Parties: Jan. 15, 2026 Completion of Discovery: May 15, 2026 The Plaintiffs' motion for class June 1, 2026 Certification: The Defendant's response to the Plaintiffs' July 1, 2026 motion for class certification and Daubert challenges to the Plaintiffs' class certification experts: The Plaintiffs' reply to the Defendant's July 31, 2026 response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Daubert challenges to the Defendants' class certification experts: Hearing on class certification motion: Aug. 13, 2026 Mid is a healthcare company that provides infertility, gynecology, and hysterectomy treatments. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3vkz2J at no extra charge.[CC] MONTEREY MUSHROOMS: Related Cases Consolidated with Sherman Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARA SHERMAN, v. MONTEREY MUSHROOMS, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-08407-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order consolidating related cases and appointing interim co-lead class counsel. 1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), the above-captioned actions (Smith v. Monterey Mushrooms, LLC, No. 25-cv-08213- BLF, Hanley v. Monterey Mushrooms, LLC, No. 25-cv 08237-BLF, and Sherman v. Monterey Mushrooms, LLC, No. 25-cv-08407-BLF) are consolidated for all purposes. 2. The consolidated action will be Smith v. Monterey Mushrooms, LLC, and all future filings will be filed in No. 25-cv-08213. The Clerk of the Court shall administratively close Case No. 25-cv-08237-BLF and Case No. 25-cv-08407-BLF. 3. Counsel for Smith, Hanley, and Sherman shall file a consolidated class action complaint on or before Nov. 24, 2025. 4. The Court adopts the language proposed by the Plaintiffs in connection with the responsibilities of Interim co-lead class counsel (25-cv-08213 ECF No. 20-3). a. The Court appoints Scott Edelsberg of Edelsberg Law and Scott Edward Cole of Cole Van Note as interim co lead class counsel to act on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the class members in the consolidated action. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs. The Smith, Hanley, and Sherman cases present similar factual and legal issues. They involve the same subject matter and are based on the same alleged wrongful conduct. Accordingly, the Court finds that the same discovery and class certification issues will be relevant to all three actions. Thus, consolidation will conserve judicial resources and reduce the time and cost of trying the cases separately. As such, the Court finds that consolidation is appropriate and will consolidate Smith, Hanley, and Sherman. Each case is a putative class action asserting claims against the Defendant arising from a cyberattack and compromise of Plaintiffs' personal information. Each of the cases brings class claims against Monterey related to an August 2025 data breach. Each case defines a class of people whose PII was exposed or compromised by the data breach. Monterey is a researcher, developer, grower, and marketer of premium mushrooms. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eQ6eii at no extra charge.[CC] MY DEVICE: Rosario Allowed Leave to File Renewed Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSARIO, et al., v. MY DEVICE, INC, Case No. 1:24-cv-08701-LGS-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Willis entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendant to produce timekeeping and payroll records for all non-exempt, hourly employees employed at Defendants Manhattan retail stores from Oct. 4, 2018, to the present. The Plaintiff is granted leave to renew this request if either collective or class certification is granted. The parties are directed to order a transcript of the Oct. 23, 2025, conference and send a courtesy copy to the Court via email. The parties appeared before the Court for oral argument on October 23, 2025. The Defendant operates as an electric bike rental company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p13aI6 at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK, NY: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lewis et al., v. The New York City Department of Correction et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-08428-LAK (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending their time to oppose the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification to Nov. 10, 2025. This is the Defendants' third request for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' class certification motion. The prior extension requests were granted by the Court on Aug. 1, 2025, and Sept. 10, 2025, respectively. The Defendants make this further extension request in light of multiple considerations. First, Bryn Ritchie, who was the primary attorney, has recently transferred to another Division within the Law Department, and the undersigned has recently been assigned to this case. Additionally, the undersigned's co-counsel, Eric Teszler, has had limited availability to work on this matter due to competing deadlines concerning multiple applications for preliminary injunctive relief brought in this Court against a separate City agency. Furthermore, the Defendants highlight that they are engaged in preliminary settlement discussions with the Plaintiffs, and are in the process of selecting a mediator with the Court's Mediation Office. The Department provides for the care and custody of people ordered to be held by the courts and awaiting trial or who are convicted and sentenced. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eNpYBd at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Saarah S. Dhinsa, Esq. THE CITY OF NEW YORK LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-0872 NORTH AMERICAN: Ott Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Machinists ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID OTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH AMERICAN STAMPING GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02300 (N.D. Ohio, October 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. The Plaintiff was employed as a machinist and maintenance technician at one of the Defendant's facilities located at 810 W. Gasser Rd., Pauling, Ohio from February 10, 1994 until June 18, 2025. North American Stamping Group is a manufacturer of stampings, automated assemblies, components, systems, and aftermarket products for the automotive industry based in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 4400 N. High St., Suite 310 Columbus, OH 43214 Telephone: (614) 704-0546 Facsimile: (614) 573-9826 Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Esther E. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 3450 W. Central Ave., Suite 370 Toledo, OH 43606 Telephone: (419) 824-4439 Facsimile: (419) 932-6719 Email: ebryant@bryantlegalllc.com - and - Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com NVIDIA CORP: Aids Third Party to Collect Client Data, Penning Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ STACY PENNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-09160 (N.D. Cal., October 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, wiretapping and use of a pen register in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, common law fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged action of causing third-party cookies and corresponding data to be stored on consumers' devices and/or transmitted to third parties when they visit the Defendant's website despite consumers' clear declination of such third-party cookies. According to the complaint, these third-party cookies permitted the third parties to track and collect data in real time regarding website visitors' behaviors and communications. The Plaintiff and Class members have been damaged by the Defendant's invasion of their privacy and are entitled to just compensation, including monetary damages. NVIDIA Corporation is a technology company, with its principal place of business in Santa Clara, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Todd Kennedy, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 Email: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com todd@gutridesafier.com ORRSTOWN BANK: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Feb. 6, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARONPRYDE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ORRSTOWN BANK, Case No. 1:25-cv-00667-KMN (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Keli M. Neary entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to extend deadline for motion for class certification. The Plaintiff's deadline to submit his motion for class certification is extended up to and including Feb. 6, 2026. Orrstown is an independent community bank. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VtWyau at no extra charge.[CC] PENSKE LOGISTICS: Class Cert Hearing Vacated in Nelson Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRY NELSON, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. PENSKE LOGISTICS LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-02756-DJC-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered an order as follows: 1. All briefing deadlines related to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification are held in abeyance pending court approval of the proposed settlement; and 2. The hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification set for Jan. 8, 2026 at 1:30 PM is vacated. 3. The Parties are ordered to provide an update regarding the status of the settlement by Dec. 5, 2025. Penske provides logistic management solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4kYyZq at no extra charge.[CC] PETROLEX II: Bid to Amend Class Cert. Amended to April 16, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kelly v Petrolex II, LLC et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-40175 (D. Mass., Filed Dec. 12, 2023), the Hon. Judge Margaret R. Guzman entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to amend the class certification deadline from April 3, 2026, to April 24, 2026, as this motion is unopposed by Plaintiffs and aligns with the parties' previous discussions. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Property Damage Product Liability. Petrolex is a company specializing in specialized repair services and fuel delivery, primarily in the HVAC and heating oil sectors.[CC] PLAUD INC: Murphy Sues Over Blind Users' Equal Access to Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PLAUD INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08807 (S.D.N.Y., October 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, and New York State General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.plaud.ai, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text equivalent, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Plaud Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal PRIORITY LIFE: Discriminates Against Minority Executives, Rowe Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- TIFFANY ROWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIORITY LIFE CARE, LLC and CELEBRATION VILLAS OF LEWISBURG, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-06073 (M.D. Pa., October 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. The case arises from the Defendants' policy and practice of discriminating against minority employees in executive or director positions at Priority Life Care. According to the complaint, the policy was adopted by the most senior executives of the company, and resulted in the targeting of minority employees, including the Plaintiff, for termination because of preconceived biases regarding race and color, and a denial of opportunities for minorities for higher level positions when compared to white employees. As a direct consequence of the Defendants' unlawful actions, the Plaintiff and the Class seek damages. Priority Life Care, LLC is a senior-living management company, headquartered in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Celebration Villas of Lewisburg is an assisted living facility in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Leeson, III, Esq. LEESON & LEESON 70 East Broad Street Bethlehem, PA 18016 Telephone: (610) 691-3320 Email: jleeson@leeson-law.com PROGENITY INC: Class Settlement in Soe Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Soe v. Progenity, Inc. et al. (RE PROGENITY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 3:20-cv-01683-RBM-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' preliminary approval motion as follows: 1. The Court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following Settlement Class: "All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Progenity, Inc. (n/k/a Biora Therapeutics, Inc.) pursuant and/or traceable to Progenity's initial public offering Registration Statement and were damaged thereby." 2. The motion for final approval of class action settlement and motion for attorneys' fees and costs must be filed and served on all parties on or before Tuesday, Janu. 20, 2026. Responses—including an opposition, a notice of non- opposition, or any objections by Class Members—must be filed and served on all parties on or before Tuesday, February 3, 2026. Any reply by Plaintiffs must be filed and served on all parties on or before Tuesday, February 17, 2026. 3. The Court sets a hearing on fairness and final approval of settlement on Monday Feb. 23, 2026, at 10:00 AM. The Defendants agree to pay a maximum gross settlement totaling $1,000,000 in exchange for the release of claims. The Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 arising from Progenity Inc.'s June 2020 initial public offering against the Defendants. Progenity is a biotechnology company based in San Diego, California that develops and commercializes molecular testing products and precision medicine applications, including "in vitro molecular tests designed to assist parents in making informed decisions related to family planning, pregnancy, and complex disease diagnosis." A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ikRfbG at no extra charge.[CC] PROTECTIVE LIFE: Absent Class Members' Bid for Atty's Fees Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEIR MILAN, individually, and on behalf of the Class; CRISTIN MORNEAU and KELLY STRANGE, individually, and jointly as successors-in interest to Carolyn A. Morneau, and on behalf of the Estate of Carolyn A. Morneau and the Class, v. PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and WEST COAST LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-01861-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Goddard entered an order denying absent class members' motion for attorney fees: The Court is "sympathetic to [Schmidt Counsel], and ha[s] no doubt that [they] dutifully and conscientiously represented their clients. This is not necessarily a case where latecomers attempt to divide spoils that they did not procure. But [Schmidt Counsel’s] efforts do not entitle them to compensation when the record indicates that they did not perform work that benefited the class." In re Volkswagen, 914 F.3d at 623. Here, Schmidt Counsel did not meet their burden to show that they meaningfully benefited the class. See, e.g., Sobel v. Hertz Corp., 53 F. Supp. 3d 1319, 1333 (D. Nev. 2014) (awarding attorney fees for meaningfully benefitting the class when the court cited counsel's objection as a reason for rejecting the settlement, causing the settlement to be renegotiated for an increase of $42 million to the common fund) On April 13, 2020, Beverly Allen filed a putative class action in the Eastern District of California against Protective Life Insurance Company and Empire General Life Insurance Company, seeking to represent a class of living insureds and beneficiaries of lapsed life insurance policies. On June 20, 2023, Ms. Allen filed a motion for class certification. Although that motion was fully briefed, the court did not resolve it. Instead, the Allen action has been stayed since December 2023. Protective offers annuities and life insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w5UfHU at no extra charge.[CC] ROWING BLAZERS: Faces Williams Suit Over Website's Access Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------------ DARNELL WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROWING BLAZERS LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13002 (N.D. Ill., October 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://rowingblazers.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Rowing Blazers Ltd. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (716) 281-5496 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law RUSSELL CELLULAR: Winter Sues Over Unpaid OT for Store Managers --------------------------------------------------------------- CASEY WINTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RUSSELL CELLULAR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03363-NRN (D. Colo., October 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly store manager from approximately July 14, 2024 through January 14, 2025. Russell Cellular, Inc. is a retail store operator in Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 Email: matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com SANTA MONICA, CA: Contreras Seeks to Certify Impound Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REYES CONTRERAS MURCIA and SHERMAN A. PERRYMAN, individually and as class representatives, v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-05253-FLA-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Nov. 21, 2025, will move the Court for an order as follows: -- Certifying an "Impound Class" defined as: "registered owners of vehicles impounded by employees of the defendants City of Santa Monica and/or Santa Monica Police Department at any time from July 28, 2020 through Nov. 22, 2022, where such impounds were pursuant to Cal. Veh. Code section 14602.6(a)(1)." -- Preliminarily appointing the Plaintiffs Reyes Contreras Murcia and Sherman A. Perryman as class representatives; -- Preliminarily appointing attorneys Cynthia Anderson-Barker, Christian Contreras and Donald W. Cook as class counsel; -- Setting a date no earlier than six weeks following certification of the Impound Class, for filing a motion for preliminary approval of class settlement. Santa Monica is a city situated along Santa Monica Bay on California's South Coast. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8hdrJn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christian Contreras, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTIAN CONTRERAS, A PROF. CORP. 360 E. 2nd Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (323) 435-8000 Facsimile: (323) 597-0101 fax E-mail: cc@contreras-law.com - and - Donald W. Cook, Esq. ATTORNEY AT LAW 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 252-9444 Facsimile: (213) 252-0091 E-mail: manncooklaw@gmail.com - and - Cynthia Anderson-Barker, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CYNTHIA ANDERSON-BARKER 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-3246 Facsimile: (213) 252-0091 E-mail: cablaw@hotmail.com SEATGEEK INC: Overcharges Ticket Resale Price, Weinstein Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- MAX WEINSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEATGEEK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08425 (S.D.N.Y., October 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated Florida's Resale of Tickets Law by charging more than $1.00 above the original ticket sellers' price on its multiday or multievent tickets to a park, entertainment complex, or to a concert, entertainment event, permanent exhibition, or recreational activity in that park or complex within the State of Florida. The Defendant has been unjustly enriched in that it received and retained the benefit of funds to which it was not entitled and received in violation of Florida law, suit says. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages. SeatGeek, Inc., is a ticket platform company, with its principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eleanor R. Grasso, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: egrasso@bursor.com - and - Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0710 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, PA 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: sbogdanovich@bursor.com SEYBOTH TEAM: Class Cert Responses Filing Due Nov. 7 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Iudiciani v. The Seyboth Team Real Estate Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00443 (D.R.I., Filed Oct. 26, 2023), the Hon. Judge Mary S. Mcelroy entered an order on motion for extension of time to file response/reply: -- Motion to Certify Class - Responses due by Nov. 7, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Seyboth is a real estate marketing company.[CC] SKYNET INDUSTRIES: Court Narrows Claims in Hackett Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DESHAUN HACKETT, v. SKYNET INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-03297-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. The implied warranty and CLRA Section 1770(a)(9) claims are dismissed with prejudice. All other claims and the class allegations survive. The Court will not dismiss claims arising under the laws of states other than California (where Hackett resides and purchased the products) at this stage. The issue “is one more appropriately resolved at the class certification stage after discovery.” For the same reason, the Court will not prematurely address at this stage any potential extraterritorial application of California law or conflict of laws issues. The following recitation of facts is based on the allegations contained in the first amended complaint. Over a five-year period, Deshaun Hackett purchased various kratom-based products at Skynet's San Francisco store. Kratom is a dried leaf containing opioid-like ingredients and is highly addictive. After spending thousands of dollars on the products, Hackett decided to cut back and suffered severe withdrawal symptoms, including vomiting, headaches, vision impairment, and stomach issues. Only then did he discover that he was addicted to kratom. But at no point before any of his purchases did Skynet disclose the addictive nature of kratom and its products, and while the scientific community knows of kratom's addictiveness, the public at large does not. Hackett accordingly commenced this putative nationwide class action to recover for Skynet's alleged failure to disclose this critical information. Skynet now moves to dismiss. Hackett alleges that he overpaid for the products in light of Skynet's omission of their addictive properties or that he would not have bought them at all had he known the truth. Hackett first bought Skynet's kratom products in 2019, but he didn't commence this action until 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZSTHbJ at no extra charge.[CC] SPOTIFY INC: Rapper Sues Over Fraudulent Streams of Drake's Songs ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Melas and Lauren Wilson, writing for NBC News, reports that Rapper RBX accused streaming giant Spotify of turning a blind eye to fraud he alleges boosted the streams of songs performed by superstar Drake, according to a federal class action lawsuit filed Sunday, November 2. The suit names as plaintiffs RBX as an individual and "on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated." The plaintiff alleges that from January 2022 through September 2025, Drake's songs have benefited from "billions of fraudulent streams" generated by fake users, or bots, on Spotify, according to the suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. "The more users (including fake users) Spotify has, the more advertisements it can sell, the more profits the company can report, all of which serves to increase the purported value delivered to shareholders" the suit says. "This mass-scale fraudulent streaming causes massive financial harm to legitimate artists, songwriters, producers and other rightsholders whose proportional share is decreased as a result of fraudulent stream inflation on Spotify's platform," it adds. The lawsuit does not allege that Drake did anything criminal. Representatives for Drake did not immediately respond to requests for comment early Monday, Nov. 3. Spotify pays artists from a revenue pool, according to its website. It calculates royalty payments from that pool based on an artist's share of the total number of monthly streams. An artist inflating their streams may take a bigger proportion of the pie than they are actually owed, leaving less payout for other artists. The lawsuit alleges Spotify failed to prevent bots fraudulently inflating streams for Drake, whose legal name is Aubrey Drake Graham. The rapper is one of the most-streamed artists on the platform, with nearly 81 million monthly listeners. Spotify recently implemented measures intended to curb "third-party services that guarantee streams." The lawsuit doesn't state how much in damages the plaintiffs seek, but says estimates show rights holders were defrauded out of "hundreds of millions of dollars." "We cannot comment on pending litigation. However, Spotify in no way benefits from the industry-wide challenge of artificial streaming," a Spotify spokesperson said in a statement. "We heavily invest in always-improving, best-in-class systems to combat it and safeguard artist payouts with strong protections like removing fake streams, withholding royalties, and charging penalties." The spokesperson added: "Our systems are working: In a case from last year, one bad actor was indicted for stealing $10,000,000 from streaming services, only $60,000 of which came from Spotify, proving how effective we are at limiting the impact of artificial streaming on our platform." The suit also cites data analysis that the plaintiffs say reveals streams of Drake songs "accumulated far higher total streams" than other artists with "far more" listeners than Drake. The suit does not include an appendix showing the analysis, doesn't say who conducted it, and NBC News could not independently verify the findings. RBX, also known as Eric Dwayne Collins, achieved fame decades ago. The artist performed for rap labels Death Row Records and Aftermath Entertainment, alongside artists including Snoop Dogg and Dr. Dre. Other artists have complained about Spotify and its business model. Shirley Manson, the lead singer of alternative group Garbage, told a concert audience in mid-October that the average musician makes little from Spotify. "They're sleeping in their vans. They're holding down numerous jobs. They're playing their guts out every night. The fact that they are not even able to sell a record and it's taken from them by rich motherf---s on streaming platforms," she said. "They're all f--ing getting paid, except for the musician." Shares of Luxembourg-based Spotify have surged this year, putting its U.S. stock market value well above $100 billion. While Drake isn't a defendant in the suit filed by RBX, it comes while the "Hotline Bling" rapper contends with a variety of other legal issues. He's currently facing a lawsuit over his involvement with an online, crypto-powered casino as well as appealing the dismissal of his defamation case against his label, UMG. [GN] STAT COURIER: Class Settlement in Jemison Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN JEMISON, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, v. STAT COURIER, INC., d/b/a, ATM AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT & DESIGN, AARON TOMCZAK, BRUCE TOMCZAK, ARON PUPI, individually, jointly and severally, Case No. 2:22-cv-01322-WSH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge W. Scott Hardy entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement. Before the Court is Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Certification of Settlement Class, Approval of Proposed Class Notice and Scheduling of a Final Approval Hearing, seeking preliminary approval of the settlement of this class action asserting alleged violations of Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, as well as asserting alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Court, having considered the requirements of 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and the Settlement documents and Memorandum of Law filed in support of Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, including specifically the parties' Agreement, as follows: The Court preliminarily finds, for purposes of this Settlement, that the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any other applicable law have been met as to the proposed Settlement Class and Sub-Class -- The Court has certified, for settlement purposes only, the following class member group (the "Class"): Class Member Group - FUND A "All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of Stat Courier, Inc., d/b/a American Transportation Management & Design ("SCI") and other related defendants that regularly operated both exempt and non-exempt vehicles while employed with SCI in Pennsylvania, on or after Sept. 15, 2019." -- The Court has also certified, for settlement purposes only, the following class member group (the "Sub-Class"): Sub-Class Member Group - FUND B "All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of Stat Courier Inc., d/b/a American Transportation Management & Design ("SCI") and other related defendants that regularly operated non-exempt vehicles while employed with SCI in Pennsylvania, on or after Sept. 15, 2019. Excluded from the Settlement Class and Sub-Class are all Hourly Employees who submit a timely and valid Request for Exclusion. -- The Plaintiff Steven Jemison is appointed as class representative for the Settlement Class. -- The Court designates J.P. Ward & Associates, LLC as Class Counsel with respect to the Settlement Class. -- A Final Approval Hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) is scheduled for May 11, 2026 at 11:00 AM. Stat offers a full range of courier services and specializes in same-day courier deliveries. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SeFBir at no extra charge.[CC] STRIPE INC: Riles Sues Over Blocked Payments on The Gold App ------------------------------------------------------------ BRANDON RILES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STRIPE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-09120-SK (N.D. Cal., October 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and deceptive and unfair business practices. The case arises from the Defendant's action of suspending and blocking multiple transactions from customers who purchased precious metals and related services on the Plaintiff's The Gold App. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff integrated the Defendant's payment platform into The Gold App since late 2022. However, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that it would terminate payment services on or about December 24, 2024. The Defendant also failed to provide a lawful or contractual justification for its actions and refused to return or release held funds. As a result, the Plaintiff and similarly situated users suffered financial loss, reputational harm, emotional distress, and loss of business opportunities. Stripe, Inc. is a financial services company, headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. TALL TIMBERS: Smith Suit Seeks Class Certification -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACIE SMITH, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. TALL TIMBERS PIZZA HUT, INC., Case No. 6:24-cv-00349-JCB-JDL (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion for certification, for disclosure of contact information, and to send notice. The Plaintiff brought this suit on behalf of all delivery drivers employed by the Defendant to recover minimum wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendant allegedly engaged in a singular policy and practice of violating the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and other delivery drivers lawful minimum wage rates because they were not properly reimbursed for all required expenditures. The Plaintiff asks this Court to certify the following class: "All current and former delivery drivers employed by the Defendant at any time during the three years preceding the filing of the Complaint to the present." A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w5fbvz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colby Qualls, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 E-mail: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com TANDEM DIABETES: Underpays Manual Software Testers, Ostrie Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM OSTRIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TANDEM DIABETES CARE INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CU057437C (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., October 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay all wages owed, failure to pay all overtime wages, meal period violations, paid sick leave violations, untimely payment of wages, wage statement violations, waiting time penalties, failure to reimburse business expenses, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a manual software tester from about October 2022 to January 2025. Tandem Diabetes Care Inc. is a developer of medical technologies, doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq. Lauren N. Vega, Esq. Dorota A. James, Esq. FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC. 3333 Camino del Rio South, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 693-7727 Facsimile: (619) 350-6855 Email: nick@ferrarovega.com lauren@ferrarovega.com dorota@ferrarovega.com TEAMSTERS UNION: Pedroza Class Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------------- The case PABLO PEDROZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TEAMSTERS UNION 25 HEALTH SERVICES & INSURANCE PLAN, Case No. 2584CV02536, was removed from the Suffolk County Superior Civil Court of Massachusetts to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on October 24, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-13128 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals. Teamsters Union 25 Health Services & Insurance Plan is a private pension plan in Massachusetts. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michael A. Feinberg, Esq. FEINBERG, DUMONT & BRENNAN 177 Milk Street, Suite 300 Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 338-1976 Facsimile: (617) 338-7070 Email: maf@fdb-law.com - and - Jill H. Fertel, Esq. Tara G. Nalencz, Esq. Conor J. Hafertepe, Esq. CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. 450 Sentry Parkway East, Suite 200 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Telephone: (610) 567-0700 Email: jfertel@c-wlaw.com tnalencz@c-wlaw.com chafertepe@c-wlaw.com TRADER JOE'S: Stephan Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEAU STEPHAN, GEORGE STRAY, LEONARD KIRSCHLING, GEORGE PHIRIPES, RHONDA HABELL, CAMERON BASS and STEPHEN BUBNIAK, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TRADER JOE’S COMPANY, THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 1:25-cv-10212-WGY (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class action, appointing the Plaintiffs as representatives of the proposed class defined below ("Class"), and appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the Class ("Class Counsel"). "All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan, at any time between Jan. 28, 2019 through the date of judgment (the "Class Period")." Trader is an American grocery store chain. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vxoxbD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Wells, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 232-3080 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jayw@capozziadler.com - and - Peter A. Muhic, Esq. MUHIC LAW LLC 923 Haddonfield Road, Suite 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (856) 324-8252 Facsimile: (717) 232-3080 E-mail: peter@muhiclaw.com TRANS UNION: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Opposition Brief ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLEY KAPLAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02438-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their uncontested motion to seal portions of its brief in opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and corresponding Exhibits C-E, G-I, K-T, W-X, and Z. Portions of TransUnion's Opposition and corresponding Exhibits C-E, G-I, K-T, W-X, and Z thereto identifies, references, quotes, and attaches numerous documents designated as confidential information. "Schedule A" to the declaration of Patrick D. Doran, enclosed with this submission, identifies the exhibits proposed to be sealed, the legitimate public or private interests that warrant sealing those documents, the clearly defined and serious injury that would result if not sealed, and why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not available. On Jan. 8, 2025, this Court entered a Stipulated Protective Order governing the disclosure and use of confidential and highly confidential information. TransUnion is an American consumer credit reporting agency. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l7NrLc at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Samantha L. Southall, Esq. Patrick D. Doran, Esq. Argia J. DiMarco, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC Two Liberty Place 50 S. 16th Street, Suite 3200 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 665-8700 Facsimile: (215) 665-8760 E-mail: samantha.southall@bipc.com patrick.doran@bipc.com argia.dimarco@bipc.com TREE TOP: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Johnson Due Nov. 9 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRAINE JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and the putative Collective and Class Members, v. TREE TOP INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03099-SAB (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Bastian entered a scheduling order re class certification briefing: 1. Counsel should review and employ Local Rule 83.1 (Civility) and Washington Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel). 2. The parties shall disclose their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) material no later than Oct. 29, 2025. 3. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed on or before Nov. 9, 2026. a. The Defendant shall file any Response on or before Dec. 14, 2026. b. The Plaintiff shall file any Reply on or before Jan. 19, 2027. Tree was the first grower-owned fruit processing cooperative in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SNXvDT at no extra charge.[CC] TRI CONTRACTING: Jorge Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- William Jorge, Francisco Gomez, and Marcos Silva on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals v. TRI CONTRACTING, INC., TRIDENT RESTORATION, INC., UKROP, INC., FINE RENOVATION, INC., REVIVE RESTORATION, INC., SWIFT ASSIST, INC., PG1 CONSTRUCTION, INC., CROWN RESTORATION, INC., CVP CONSTRUCTION CORP., RSO MANAGEMENT, INC., 558 MAIN STREET, LLC, 115 ABEEL STREET, LLC, 2165 23RD STREET LLC, TRI BUILDERS, INC., TRIDENT RENOVATION & ASSOCIATES, INC., TRIDENT MGMT RE LLC, 64-66 CATHERINE STREET CORP., STEFAN BOHDANOWYCZ, PETER GOIAN, and VLADIMER DOBRONRAVOV, Case No. 1:25-cv-08896 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages. The Plaintiffs were required to be paid at least the statutory minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime pay at the statutory rate of time and one-half times their regular hourly rate for hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek. However, for most of their employment, Plaintiffs were paid a flat day rate. The Defendants' violations against Plaintiffs, the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the NYLL Class Plaintiffs have been willful in that Defendants recklessly disregarded the requirements of the law, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants. The Defendant Entities perform construction, repair, and renovation services for townhomes, buildings, and apartments throughout New York City and New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Lucas C. Buzzard, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 45 Broadway, Suite 320 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 688-5640 Fax: (212) 981-9587 TRICIDA INC: Class Settlement in Pardi Suit Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PARDI, et al., v. TRICIDA, INC., et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00076-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting the motion for final approval of class action settlement, and the motion for attorneys' fees. The Court awards attorneys' fees in the amount of $3,918,750.00 and costs in the amount of $337,645.15. The Court grants the Lead Plaintiff's motion for costs and expenses and awards the Lead Plaintiff $1,700. The parties and settlement administrator are directed to implement this Final Order and the Settlement Agreement in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The parties are further directed to file a short stipulated final judgment of two pages or less within 7 days from the date of this order. The judgment need not, and should not, repeat the analysis in this Order. For guidance on the format of such a stipulated judgment, the Court directs the parties to review Vataj v. Johnson, Case No. 4:19-cv-06996. Class counsel shall file a Post-Distribution Accounting within 21 days after the settlement checks become stale (or, if no checks are issued, all funds have been paid to class members, cy pres beneficiaries, and others pursuant to the Settlement Agreement). In addition to the information contained in the Northern District of California’s Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, available at https://cand.uscourts.gov/forms/procedural-guidance-for-class action-settlements/, the Post-Distribution Accounting shall discuss any significant or recurring concerns communicated by class members to the settlement administrator or counsel since final approval, any other issues in settlement administration since final approval, and how any concerns or issues were resolved. Counsel is directed to summarize this information in an easy-to-read chart that allows for quick comparisons with other cases. The parties shall post the Post Distribution Accounting, including the easy-to-read chart, on the settlement website. The Court may hold a hearing following submission of the parties’ Post-Distribution Accounting. The Court will withhold 10% of the attorneys’ fees granted in this Order until the Post Distribution Accounting has been filed. Class Counsel shall file a proposed order releasing the remainder of the fees when they file their Post-Distribution Accounting. IT IS SO ORDERED. Lead Plaintiff is a salaried worker who makes approximately $160,000 a year, with limited paid time off. In an effort to calculate how much he should be compensated, the Plaintiff divided his $160,000 annual salary by 235 days of work a year. The Court finds that this is a reasonable estimate of the actual costs and expenses that Lead Plaintiff incurred as a result of this litigation. The Court therefore grants Lead Plaintiff's request. Class Definition: The Class is defined the same as in the Court's prior order granting class certification as "All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Tricida, Inc. during the period from May 8, 2020 to Feb. 25, 2021." The Class definition excludes anyone who validly seeks exclusion from the Class or whose request for exclusion the Court accepts. Settlement Benefits: Defendant Klaerner will make a non-reversionary payment of $14,250,000. On Jan. 6, 2021, Plaintiff Michael Pardi filed an initial complaint against both Tricida and Defendant Gerritt Klaerner, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. Tricida was a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UUffDr at no extra charge.[CC] TURQUOISE HILL: $138.75MM Class Settlement Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-08585-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis Liman entered an order -- granting the motion for final approval of the settlement agreement and plan of allocation; and -- granting the motion for Lead Counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses. The Clerk of Court is directed to close Dkt. Nos. 477 and 479. Lead Counsel has convinced the Court that there need not be any holdback in this case. Any delay in the distribution of the settlement would be to the detriment of Lead Counsel, as Lead Counsel both has a current relationship with Lead Plaintiff and a motive to perform so as to continue its relationship with Lead Plaintiff in the future. Thus, in this particular case, it is the position of Lead Plaintiff more than any holdback that will ensure the class is protected. A holdback of compensation to Lead Counsel, which has performed its role on behalf of the class so ably, would inflict harm and undermine the incentives for counsel to undertake risky, complicated cases for sophisticated lead plaintiffs in the future. The case arises out of delay in the construction of the Oyu Tolgoi mine located in Mongolia, expected to be one of the largest copper mines in the world. Turquoise Hill began work on the Mine as early as 2001, but worked ceased in 2013 due to a disagreement between OT and the Government of Mongolia. Construction resumed in 2016. From the beginning of the renewal of work in 2016, the project was plagued by significant engineering, procurement, and construction issues. Eventually, in July 2019, Rio Tinto and Turquoise Hill disclosed a delay of sixteen to thirty months for sustainable first production and cost overruns of $1.2–$1.9 billion, resulting in Turquoise Hill's stock price plummeting about 43%. The final settlement is embodied in a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement. It provides for the payment by or on behalf of Defendants of $138,750,000 for the benefit of the Settlement Class in exchange for a release by members of the class, including Lead Plaintiff, of all claims against Defendants and Defendants’ Releasees. The June 26, 2025 Order contained the Court's findings that it would likely be able to approve certification of the Settlement Class defined as: "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Turquoise Hill, call options on Turquoise Hill common stock (or sold put options on Turquoise Hill common stock), or swaps replicating a purchase of Turquoise Hill common stock, in domestic transactions or on U.S. exchanges, during the Class Period, and were damaged thereby." Turquoise was a Canadian mineral exploration and development company. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ELil0d at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs' Class Cert Bid Tossed ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS et al., v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00802-RBW (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Reggie Walton entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. -- the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is denied without prejudice. -- the Defendants' deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint (and all other applicable deadlines) is stayed pending further order of the Court. -- the Defendants shall continue processing loan cancellations for borrowers who are eligible for cancellations under the Income-Based Repayment (IBR) plan. -- the defendants shall not deny as ineligible any borrower applying for the IBR plan on the ground that the borrower lacks a "partial financial hardship," as previously defined by Section 493C(a)(3) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. section 1098e(a)(3) (2024), and that the defendants shall hold such borrowers’ applications in abeyance until the defendants update their systems to allow for proper processing of these applications. The Department is the agency of the federal government that establishes policy for, administers, and coordinates most federal assistance to education. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B46H9f at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Tanner-Brown Appeals Suit Dismissal to D.C. Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ LEATRICE TANNER-BROWN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Leatrice Tanner-Brown, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Tara Sweeney, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00565-RC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs Leatrice Tanner-Brown and the Harvest Institute Freedman Federation, LLC ("HIFF") filed this putative class action against the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior and the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Interior Department, in their official capacities, seeking accountings related to land that was allotted to the minor children of emancipated slaves of Native American tribes. The Plaintiffs allege breaches of trust and fiduciary duties, and seek various remedies, including declaratory and injunctive relief. On Feb. 17, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge Rudolph Contreras granted on Sept. 24, 2025. The Court finds that Plaintiff Tanner-Brown has failed to plead a plausible trust or fiduciary duty that the Defendants could have breached, so her claims for an accounting and trust mismanagement must both be dismissed. The appellate case is entitled Leatrice Tanner-Brown, et al. v. Tara Sweeney, et al., Case No. 25-5374, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on October 22, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Leatrice Tanner-Brown, personal representative of the Estate of George W. Curls, Sr., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Percy Squire, Esq. PERCY SQUIRE CO., LLC 341 S. 3rd Street, Suite 10 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 224-6528 Defendants-Appellees WILLIAM KIRKLAND, et al. are represented by: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-2000 VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN: Thomas Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case KAREN THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, AMN SERVICES, LLC, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV26014, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on October 24, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10228 to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code. Valley Presbyterian Hospital is a healthcare services provider in California. AMN Services, LLC is a staffing and total talent solutions company based in Texas. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum, Esq. Anthony D. Sbardellati, Esq. Nancy Sotomayor, Esq. Perry J. Zirpoli, Esq. GROVE LAW LLP 10000 Washington Blvd., Sixth Floor Culver City, CA 90232 Telephone: (310) 853-6020 Email: skroll-rosenbaum@grove.law asbardellati@grove.law nsotomayor@grove.law pzirpoli@grove.law VIP 1 PARTNERS: Jimenez Sues to Recover Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Conerison Jimenez and Wuahner Franklin Calzado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VIP 1 PARTNERS LLC and LOCUST COVE MANAGEMENT LLC and HENRY ROSA, as an individuals, Case No. 1:25-cv-08887 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2025), is brought against the Defendants to recover overtime wage and damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiff's employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs' overtime wages for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week at a wage rate of one and a half times the regular wage to which Plaintiffs were entitled under New York Labor Law, in violation of 12 N.Y.C.R.R. 137-1.3. Due to Defendants' New York Labor Law violations, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants, jointly and severally, their unpaid overtime wages and an amount equal to their unpaid overtime wages in the form of liquidated damages, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of the action, including interest in accordance with NY Labor Law, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants. VIP 1 PARTNERS LLC, is a New York domestic limited liability company organized under the laws of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 Fax: 718-263-9598 WALGREEN CO: Brown Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dennis Brown, individually and on behalf of all others situated v. WALGREEN CO., an Illinois Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV25723 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Oct. 27, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10323. The Complaint brings putative class claims for an alleged: Failure to Pay All Wages Due; Failure to Provide Rest Breaks and Pay Missed Rest Break Premiums; Failure to Provide Meal Periods and Pay Missed Meal Period Premiums; Failure to Timely Pay All Wages Owed in a Timely Manner; Failure to Provide Complete Wage Statements; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages Owed; Civil Penalties Pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"); and Unfair Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Evan R. Moses, Esq. Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq. Austin J. Freeman, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: evan.moses@ogletree.com paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com austin.freeman@ogletree.com WALGREEN CO: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Polk Due Feb. 13, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Polk v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 6:25-cv-00473 (D. Or., Filed March 20, 2025), the Hon. Judge Ann L. Aiken entered an order granting Motion for Extension of Discovery & PTO Deadlines. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification to be filed by Feb. 13, 2026. Discovery is to be completed by March 13, 2026. Dispositive Motions are due by July 17, 2026. The nature of suit states Diversity-Employment Discrimination. Walgreens is an American pharmacy store chain.[CC] WESTERN RESERVE: Roby Seeks Unpaid OT for Surgical Technologists ---------------------------------------------------------------- CARRIE ROBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTERN RESERVE HOSPITAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-02294 (N.D. Ohio, October 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a surgical technologist since approximately April 15, 2019. Western Reserve Hospital, LLC is a provider of hospital and healthcare services, with its headquarters in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher St, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hnilges@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. 1360 E. 9th St., Suite 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com WILSON OUTDOOR: Steward Sues Over Unpaid OT & Retaliatory Discharge ------------------------------------------------------------------- TUAN STEWARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILSON OUTDOOR SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01960 (S.D. Ill., October 24, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Worker's Compensation Act including failure to pay overtime wages and retaliatory discharge. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a groundman on or about July 31, 2025 until his termination on or about September 4, 2025. Wilson Outdoor Services, LLC is a tree care services and storm cleanup provider based in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad W. Eisenback, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (331) 307-7632 Facsimile: (630) 575-8188 Email: ceisenback@sulaimanlaw.com WONDERFUL SHOES: Faces Solis Suit Over Website's Access Barriers ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERTO SOLIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WONDERFUL SHOES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-05937 (E.D.N.Y., October 23, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.shoevillage.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Wonderful Shoes, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com [^] 12 Litigators Recognized in CAU's Inaugural Award ----------------------------------------------------- Class Action Updates is pleased to announce the inaugural class of the Premier Class Action Lawyers of Tomorrow award, recognizing 12 exceptional rising stars under 40 who are redefining the frontiers of class action litigation through innovative strategies, landmark victories, and unwavering commitment to justice on both sides of the bar. Selected from a highly competitive pool of nominations, their groundbreaking work promises to inspire the next generation of litigators and fortify the pillars of the legal system. Join us in congratulating the 2025 honorees: TYLER J. BEAN, Siri & Glimstad LLP in New York, NY; RYAN GARIPPO, Duane Morris, LLP in Chicago, IL; NINA GLIOZZO, Girard Sharp LLP in San Francisco, CA; MATTHEW J. GRIER, Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP in New York, NY; MICHAEL C. GRIFFIN, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP in New York, NY; AMANDA KARL, Gibbs Mura, A Law Group in San Francisco, CA; BRIAN LIEGEL, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP in Miami, FL; JULIA MCGRATH, Berger Montague PC in Philadelphia, PA; JACQUELINE R. MEYERS, Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP in New York, NY; ERIN RUBEN, Lee Segui PLLC in Raleigh, NC; ARIANNA SCAVETTI, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP in Washington, D.C.; and GEORGE SCHALLER, Duane Morris LLP in Chicago, IL A full-text copy of the announcement, including profiles of each honoree, is available at https://classactionupdates.substack.com/p/12-litigators-recognized-in-class The award recipients will be honored at the Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference scheduled for May 6-7, 2026 at The Harmonie Club in Manhattan. Information on the CAME conference is available at https://www.classactionconference.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 ***