251112.mbx

251112.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, November 12, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 226 Headlines 48FORTY SOLUTIONS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $250,000 ACADEMY MORTGAGE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Suit ACCESS MIDSTREAM: Court Junks Bid to Reconsider "Brown" Dismissal ANGLO AMERICAN: Faces Class Action Appeal Over Poisoning in Zambia BEVERLY HILLS: May Face Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach CANTOR EQUITY: M&A Investigates Merger With Securitize Inc. CARMAX INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit CONNEXION POINT: Court Conditionally Certifies "Cruz" FLSA Class CULINARY SPECIALTIES: Faces Class Suit Over Denied Meal Breaks DOMINION ENERGY: Amended Bid for Certification in "Arble" Denied DOW INC: Investor Sue Over Misleading Information on Tariffs ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Court Orders More Discovery in "Bah" Suit FIRST CHOICE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $1.225-Mil. MODERNIZING MEDICINE: Faces E.F. Suit Over Data Breach MODERNIZING MEDICINE: Greger Files Suit Over Data Breach MONTEREY MUSHROOMS: Related Cases Consolidated with Smith Suit NEW YORK: O'Donnell Files Suit in S.D. New York NPAS SOLUTIONS: Otiniano TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida PALOMAR HEALTH MEDICAL: Mills Files Suit in S.D. California PLAZA DE LA RAZA CHILD: Say Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RAMKO INJECTION INC: La Rosa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. REPUBLIC NATIONAL: Meraz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. STUBHUB INC: Face Class Action Over "FanProtect Guarantee" SYNOPSYS INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Statements UNKNOWN SALINAS: Smith Files Suit in W.D. Michigan UPSAL GARDEN: Philadelphia Tenants Allege Illegal Rent Collection VOGUE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Suit Over OGX Hair Products WESTERN EXPRESS: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Action for $2.7-Mil. ********* 48FORTY SOLUTIONS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $250,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that 48forty Solutions has agreed to a $250,000 class action settlement to resolve a lawsuit over a December 2021 data breach that exposed private user information. The 48forty Solutions class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on July 28, 2025, and covers all individuals who were notified that their personally identifiable information was potentially compromised during the 2021 48forty data breach. Per court documents, 13,404 people were notified about the cyberattack, which occurred on or about December 31, 2021. The court-approved website for the 48forty class action settlement can be found at https://www.48FortySettlement.com/. 48forty settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. Per the settlement agreement, those who submit documented proof of "extraordinary" out-of-pocket losses plausibly stemming from the 48forty Solutions data breach are eligible for a one-time cash payment of up to $2,500. Reimbursable extraordinary-loss expenses may include costs related to fraudulent charges, identity theft, and other forms of credit protection and insurance, settlement documents say. Class members who submit documented proof of expenses and lost time related to the data breach are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $275 each, settlement documents state. Charges covered under this reimbursement option may include costs related to credit freezes, card replacement fees, late fees, costs to obtain credit reports, over-limit fees, time spent monitoring accounts, and costs associated with credit protection and insurance. In addition to either monetary reimbursement option, settlement class members who resided in California at the time of the 48forty data breach are eligible for a separate, statutory damages cash payment of $50. Per the settlement agreement, 48forty settlement class members have the option to receive their payment via check or electronic payment, and checks must be cashed within 90 days of issuance before expiration. Moreover, all class members who submit a valid claim form are also eligible to receive one free year of Aura's three-bureau CyEx Financial Shield services. Though a claim form is not required to receive this service, class members must complete an enrollment sign-on within 90 days of the deal receiving final approval, and any appeals are resolved. To submit a 48forty settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. Class members can access their free year of Financial Shield services on this page by entering the activation code sent in the notice and/or to their email address. Consumers who believe they may be a settlement class member but did not receive a class action settlement notice can contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and receive their login information. 48forty settlement claim forms must be submitted online by December 22, 2025. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the 48forty settlement at a hearing on February 27, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The 48forty class action lawsuit claimed that the pallet distributor was responsible for a data incident that exposed the information of thousands of current and former 48forty employees. According to the settlement website, the data that was impacted by the data breach included names, Social Security numbers and other personally identifiable information. [GN] ACADEMY MORTGAGE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- ABA Banking Journal reports that Utah federal court declines to dismiss data breach class action against Academy Mortgage Company. Data breach Stern v. Academy Mortgage Corporation Date: Oct. 8, 2025 Issue: Whether a proposed class possessed standing and adequately stated claims in their lawsuit against Academy Mortgage Company over a data breach. Case Summary: Judge David Barlow of the U.S. District Court of Utah refused to dismiss a data breach class action against Academy Mortgage Company. Academy collects and stores sensitive Personally Identifiable Information (PII), including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, credit histories, income and other financial data. On March 21, 2023, Academy discovered the ransomware gang BlackCat/Alphv had infiltrated its computer network, compromising the PII of roughly 284,443 individuals. BlackCat claimed responsibility on its blog, demanded a ransom, and threatened to release the data. When Academy refused to pay, the group posted a large amount of stolen data -- including mortgage applications, financial documents, driver's licenses, passports, fingerprints, and signatures -- on the dark web. Academy notified affected customers and employees on Dec. 20, 2023. A proposed class sued Academy alleging it failed to protect customer and employee data. The class alleged ongoing harm, including increased spam calls, anxiety and efforts to prevent identity theft. Some class members claimed the breach led to identity theft, including fraudulent loans, unauthorized credit card activity, and verification attempts. The class contended Academy's failure to secure their data directly caused these harms. On June 27, 2025, Academy moved to dismiss the case. First, Academy argued plaintiffs lack Article III standing because they failed to allege a concrete injury and relied on speculation. Academy also argued that complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief because the class did not adequately allege damages under Utah law and did not provide enough facts to support other essential elements of their claims. Refusing to dismiss the entire case, the court ruled the class adequately alleged Article III standing. The court acknowledged that data breach cases pose unique challenges in demonstrating a concrete injury in fact. At the same time, the court relied on the prevailing rule from other circuits: plaintiffs must allege actual misuse of the stolen PII -- such as identity theft, fraud, or publication on the dark web -- to establish imminent harm. Addressing the alleged injuries -- BlackCat publishing the stolen data on the dark web, along with fraudulent loan and credit card activity, the court determined these injuries created an imminent risk of harm and a favorable ruling could remedy them. After finding Article III standing, the court declined to dismiss most claims. It allowed the negligence claim to proceed, determining the class alleged present injury from identity-theft risks, mitigation costs, and exposure of personal data -- fitting within the independent-duty exception. The court also allowed the breach-of-implied-contract claim to proceed, concluding the privacy policy and the exchange of PII plausibly created enforceable obligations. The court also refused to dismiss claims for invasion of privacy and violations of the California Customer Records Act; California Consumer Privacy Act; and consumer protection laws in California, Washington and Idaho. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim, finding they failed to show that Academy received or retained a direct, unjust benefit. Although the plaintiffs alleged they provided money, labor, or personal information from which Academy profited, the court held these allegations were insufficient because Academy did not obtain any benefit beyond the services it had already been paid to provide. Bottom Line: The court dismissed only the unjust enrichment claim, while all other claims survived based on plausible allegations of harm and legal duty. [GN] ACCESS MIDSTREAM: Court Junks Bid to Reconsider "Brown" Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as James L. Brown, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Access Midstream Partners, L.P., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-00591 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Karoline Mehalchick of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied Defendant Domenic J. Dell'Osso, Jr.'s motion for reconsideration. The Court denied Dell'Osso's motion requesting reconsideration of the Court's May 16, 2025, Order that denied Dell'Osso's request for dismissal. Plaintiffs James L. Brown on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated opposed the motion. This case was filed in 2014, along with related case The Suessenbach Family Limited Partnership et al v. Access Midstream Partners L.P., et al. 3:14-cv-01197. Both cases raise claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Access Midstream Partners, L.P., and the Williams Companies, Inc. On June 28, 2020, Chesapeake filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Court concluded that Plaintiffs are barred from litigating claims alleged against Dell'Osso in his capacity as a Chesapeake officer for pre-Effective Date acts, which includes the RICO based claims. On February 10, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Partial Dismissal to dismiss with prejudice all claims against Chesapeake Energy Corporation and all claims against Dell'Osso to the extent they are alleged against Dell'Osso in his capacity as a Chesapeake officer for pre-Effective Date acts. Dell'Osso suggested that due to a procedural history spanning more than a decade and overlay of the bankruptcy discharge, material errors of fact and law warrant reconsideration. Dell'Osso's argument was that because the complaint does not sufficiently put Dell'Osso of notice of the claims against him in his capacity as an officer of Access, and because he has been discharged from this action in his capacity as an agent of Chesapeake, the Court erred by failing to dismiss him. Plaintiffs asserted that the Court properly denied this motion because it fails to satisfy controlling legal authority governing a motion for reconsideration. The Court noted that motions for reconsideration should be granted sparingly and are not a proper avenue to relitigate issues already resolved by the Court. Dell'Osso failed to introduce any new evidence, intervening change of the law, or clear error of law. As the Court previously determined, Dell'Osso remains in this action in his capacity as an alleged agent of Access, consistent with the language from the Bankruptcy Court. The Court found that Dell'Osso is sufficiently on notice of the claims against him in this role and that he is not entitled to dismissal, as there are claims against him in the complaint that can be separated from his role at Chesapeake. Accordingly, Dell'Osso's motion for reconsideration was denied. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qHwTSc from PacerMonitor.com ANGLO AMERICAN: Faces Class Action Appeal Over Poisoning in Zambia ------------------------------------------------------------------ WTOP News reports that an appeal hearing opened Monday, November 3, in South Africa on whether a subsidiary of British-based mining company Anglo American PLC was responsible for lead poisoning over decades that affected around 140,000 people in Zambia. The class action by women and children asks South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeal to overturn a judgment by a lower court that dismissed their case against Anglo American South Africa. They allege that a mine in the Zambian city of Kabwe -- which Anglo American South Africa was involved with from 1925 to 1974 -- "poisoned generations of local people," according to a statement from their lawyers. The lower court in Johannesburg dismissed their case in 2023, ruling that there was a lack of initial evidence that they had been poisoned. It called their case "an unmanageable class action" because every one of the roughly 140,000 people would have to prove they suffered from illness caused by lead poisoning. The judge in that ruling asserted that it could take 10 years for lawyers just to consult with all the people bringing the case. Kabwe, in central Zambia, has been called one of the most polluted places in the world and was named in a 2022 United Nations special report as an area permanently altered by mining activity. A Human Rights Watch report this year said that soil contamination in Kabwe reaches 60,000 milligrams of lead per kilogram. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says lead contamination over 200 milligrams per kilogram is hazardous. The class action lawsuit has been supported by several rights and civic groups, including Amnesty International, which says medical studies show that children from Kabwe have record-high levels of lead in their blood. Lead can cause permanent damage to internal organs, including the brain. Anglo American does not dispute that severe contamination occurred in Kabwe but says it only held a minority share in the Zambian company that operated the mine. "An attempt is being made to hold (Anglo American South Africa) liable for a mine we have never owned nor operated and for pollution and harm that others have caused and freely acknowledged as their responsibility," Anglo American said. Zambia was rocked by another mining disaster this year when a Chinese company was accused of covering up the extent of a toxic spill that resulted in tons of cyanide, arsenic, copper, zinc, lead and other pollutants flowing into a major river that millions of people rely on for drinking water and for irrigating crops. [GN] BEVERLY HILLS: May Face Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys working with ClassAction.org are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed in light of the Beverly Hills Oncology Medical Group data breach. As part of their investigation, they need to hear from individuals who received a notice stating they were impacted. Beverly Hills Oncology Medical Group, operating as Beverly Hills Cancer Center in Los Angeles County, California, is notifying individuals of a data security incident. The Beverly Hills Oncology Medical Group data breach was identified after unauthorized access to the network occurred between February 7 and February 11, 2025. Upon discovering the data breach, the company collaborated with cybersecurity experts to assess the extent of the incident. The investigation, concluded on October 13, 2025, revealed that personal data may have been removed, including full names, Social Security numbers, government ID numbers, driver's license numbers, financial account details, credit/debit card information, health insurance policy details, and medical information including treatment, prescriptions and diagnoses. Beverly Hills Oncology Medical Group began notifying potentially affected individuals by mail starting October 31, 2025. What You Can Do After the Beverly Hills Oncology Medical Group Data Breach If your information was exposed in the data breach, attorneys want to hear from you. You may be able to start a class action lawsuit to recover compensation for loss of privacy, time spent dealing with the breach, out-of-pocket costs, and more. A successful case could also force Beverly Hills Oncology Medical Group to ensure it takes proper steps to protect the information it was entrusted with. [GN] CANTOR EQUITY: M&A Investigates Merger With Securitize Inc. ----------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC, headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Cantor Equity Partners II, Inc. (NASDAQ: CEPT) related to its merger with Securitize, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Cantor II will issue shares to Securitize shareholders subject to an exchange ratio. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/cantor-equity-partners-ii-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] CARMAX INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of CarMax, Inc. (NYSE: KMX) between June 20, 2025 and September 24, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for CarMax investors under the federal securities laws. To join the CarMax class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=47077 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Defendants recklessly overstated CarMax's growth prospects when, in reality, its earlier growth in the 2026 fiscal year was a temporary benefit from customers buying cars due to speculation regarding tariffs; and (2) as a result, defendants statements about CarMax's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 2, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=47077 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: case@rosenlegal.com[GN] CONNEXION POINT: Court Conditionally Certifies "Cruz" FLSA Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Maryann Cruz, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Connexion Point, LLC, a Utah limited liability company; and Integrity, LLC, f/k/a Integrity Marketing Group, a Texas limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00966-TC-DBP, Judge Tena Campbell of the United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division, granted the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification and granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss and to strike class allegations. Named Plaintiff Maryann Cruz worked for the Defendants as a remote Licensed Healthcare Agent from September 2024 to December 2024. In her position, Ms. Cruz was responsible for assisting Medicare beneficiaries with their inquiries about insurance plans in their area. Ms. Cruz was paid an hourly rate for her services, which most recently was $18.00. Opt-in Plaintiff Stanleyesha Warren worked as a remote Licensed Healthcare Agent for the Defendants from August 2021 to December 2021 and again from August 2024 to December 2024. Ms. Warren was paid an hourly rate, most recently of $21.00. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated remote, hourly Healthcare Agents for all overtime wages owed for the hours they worked. According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants require the Agents to have all of their computer networks, software programs and applications open and ready at the start of their scheduled shifts. This startup and login process takes, on average, fifteen to twenty minutes a day. Agents must also return from their lunch breaks early to begin the bootup process, which takes, on average, three to five minutes. At the end of the day, the required shutdown and logout process takes another two to five minutes. According to the Plaintiffs, the timekeeping system is unavailable until after the Agents have connected to the Defendants' server. Until they have loaded and logged into all of their computer systems, an Agent cannot take calls. If an Agent is clocked in but unavailable to take or make calls for too long, it can result in poor performance scores and possible disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Agents are scheduled for 40 hours in a week, and they cannot work overtime without approval. Ms. Cruz alleged that she was directed not to clock in prior to the start of her scheduled shift. The Plaintiffs specified that their supervisor, Charm Wilson, informed them that Agents are not permitted to clock in before they are ready to field incoming calls. The Defendants' computer systems track the very moment that CCRs begin logging into the computer systems required to be ready and available to field calls at shift start time, regardless of whether CCRs are clocked in through the timekeeping system. The Defendants control the Agents' work schedules and duties. The Fair Labor Standards Act provides that no employer shall employ any of his employees for a workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants' practices violate the FLSA and sought conditional certification for all current and former remote, hourly Healthcare Agents who worked for Defendants at any time from June 25, 2022 to present. In response, the Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs did not work sufficient hours to qualify for overtime, the Plaintiffs do not demonstrate a written company wide policy of failing to pay overtime, the Plaintiffs have not shown a common or uniform practice of the Defendants not following their written policies, and the Plaintiffs themselves have unique experiences. Separately, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiffs' claim under the FLSA for unpaid overtime should be dismissed. Specifically, the Defendants argued that Ms. Cruz does not plausibly allege facts demonstrating that Defendants prohibited Plaintiff from clocking-in or otherwise reporting her alleged off-the-clock work. The Court addressed conditional certification first. Section 216(b) of the FLSA allows any one or more employees to bring an action to recover for unpaid wages or overtime compensation for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated. The Tenth Circuit has approved a two-step process for evaluating whether employees are similarly situated. Under the first step, courts apply a lenient standard to determine whether the plaintiff has asserted substantial allegations that the putative class members were together victims of a single decision, policy, or plan, such that sending notice is appropriate. The Court found that the allegations of the Complaint and the factual assertions made in the declarations of Plaintiff and Ms. Warren plausibly support a preliminary finding that Plaintiff and some other Agents are similarly situated sufficient to support notice. The Plaintiffs alleged that they and others in the proposed collective had to perform time-consuming bootup processes before they could clock in at the start of their shifts and before the end of their lunch breaks. They also had to perform the required shutdown process after the end of their shifts. Ms. Cruz attested that she often worked more than eight hours per day, forty or more hours per week, and was routinely not paid by Defendants for all overtime hours. Ms. Warren made the same allegations. The allegations were sufficient for the Court to find that the employees in this matter are similarly situated. The Court found that factual disputes about whether the Plaintiffs worked sufficient hours to qualify for overtime are more appropriate for the second step in the Tenth Circuit's two-step process. At this stage, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that they worked unpaid overtime hours. The Defendants argued that if a collective is certified, it should be limited to the Plaintiffs' specific client team and supervisor. However, the Court found that the Plaintiffs are not tied to a particular call center, and all Agents are managed centrally from CXP's headquarters in Sandy, Utah. Limiting the proposed collective to the Plaintiffs' client team and supervisor is not appropriate in this context. The Court accepted the Plaintiffs' proposed notice with two modifications: the notice must include the requirement to preserve evidence, and the notice must inform members that they could incur costs. Notice may be sent by mail and email. The Defendants must provide the Plaintiffs with the full name, last known address, telephone number, email addresses, and dates and location of employment of each person falling within the certified class of putative opt-in plaintiffs. The Court approved the Sixty-day opt-in period but denied the Plaintiffs' request to issue a reminder email. The Court preserved the issue of equitable tolling but found no reason to grant equitable tolling at this time. Regarding the failure to state a claim, the Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss with prejudice their state law quantum meruit claim and abandoned their Rule 23 class allegations. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' quantum meruit claim and struck the Plaintiffs' Rule 23 class allegation. The Defendants alleged that the Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently state a claim under the FLSA for unpaid overtime because they do not plausibly allege facts demonstrating that Defendants prohibited Plaintiff from clocking-in or otherwise reporting her alleged off-the-clock work. The Court was not persuaded. The Plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to show that they were prevented from recording their off-the-clock work related to starting up and shutting down the necessary systems. Specifically, the Plaintiffs alleged that they and other Agents were scheduled for forty hours in a week, prohibited from working unapproved overtime, and required to be logged into their computer systems at the beginning of their shifts. The time spent on the boot up process therefore would necessarily entail working overtime. Additionally, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Agents have to perform the boot up procedures in order to access the online timekeeping system. This fact would also necessarily entail off-the-clock work. The Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs' failure to clock in or out for off-the-clock work destroys their FLSA claim. This argument was also unconvincing. The Plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to show that the Defendants had constructive notice of the Agents' off-the-clock work. Specifically, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants' computer systems track the very moment that CCRs begin logging into the computer systems required to be ready and available to field calls at shift start time, regardless of whether CCRs are clocked in through the timekeeping system. The Plaintiffs therefore successfully pled that the Defendants had at least constructive knowledge that the Agents were working off-the-clock. Accordingly, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification. The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and to Strike Class Allegations. The Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' quantum meruit claim and Rule 23 class action allegations but denied the Defendants' request to dismiss the Plaintiffs' FLSA claim. The Defendants must provide the Plaintiffs with the required information within 14 days of this order. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RTZdDS from PacerMonitor.com CULINARY SPECIALTIES: Faces Class Suit Over Denied Meal Breaks -------------------------------------------------------------- bamlawca.com reports that in 2025, Culinary Specialties, Inc. was named in a class-action lawsuit filed in the San Diego County Superior Court. The complaint alleges that the company violated multiple provisions of the California Labor Code by failing to provide employees with lawful, off-duty meal breaks and by failing to provide full compensation for time worked. Case: Erika Montoro v. Culinary Specialties, Inc. Court: San Diego County Superior Court (California) Case No.: 25CU046725N The Plaintiff: Montoro v. Culinary Specialties, Inc. Erika Montoro filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself and other current and former employees, alleging that Culinary Specialties failed to provide required off-duty meal periods and did not pay premium wages when those breaks were missed or interrupted. According to the complaint, employees were routinely required to work more than five hours without receiving an uninterrupted 30-minute meal period, and some were denied a second meal period during shifts exceeding ten hours. The plaintiffs also claim that workers were required to remain "on call" during meal periods, forcing them to stay available for work-related duties and thus preventing them from fully discharging their job responsibilities. The Defendant: Montoro v. Culinary Specialties, Inc. Culinary Specialties, Inc. operates as a food production and manufacturing company based in Southern California. The lawsuit alleges that the company's policies and scheduling practices violate several sections of the California Labor Code, including those governing wages, meal periods, and reimbursement of expenses. Employees were allegedly required to remain on duty or subject to employer control throughout their shifts, including during designated meal breaks. The complaint further alleges that Culinary Specialties failed to compensate workers with the additional hour of premium pay required under Labor Code Section 226.7 for each day a compliant meal period was not provided. A History of the Case: Montoro v. Culinary Specialties, Inc. Filed in September 2025, the class action is still pending in the San Diego County Superior Court. The plaintiff seeks class certification on behalf of all non-exempt employees who worked for Culinary Specialties during the statutory period. The lawsuit alleges violations of Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 1198.5, and 2802. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, statutory penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees. The Main Question Being Considered: Montoro v. Culinary Specialties, Inc. The primary question before the court is whether Culinary Specialties violated California's meal-period laws by requiring employees to remain on duty during their "off duty" meal breaks or by interrupting those breaks for work-related tasks. The court will determine whether the company's practices effectively denied employees their legally mandated off-duty meal periods and whether failure to provide additional compensation constituted a systemic violation of California wage and hour statutes. FAQ: Montoro v. Culinary Specialties, Inc. Q: What does the Culinary Specialties lawsuit claim? A: The lawsuit alleges that employees were required to remain on duty or available for work during meal breaks, were denied a second meal period on longer shifts, and were not paid premium wages for missed breaks. Q: What labor laws are at issue? A: The complaint cites California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 1198.5, and 2802, which govern pay, breaks, and reimbursement of expenses. Q: What is an "off-duty" meal period? A: An off-duty meal period means the employee is fully relieved of all job duties and free to leave the work area. If the employee remains under employer control, the meal period is not considered compliant. Q: What relief are the plaintiffs seeking? A: They seek unpaid wages, premium pay for missed meal breaks, penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees. Q: Why does this case matter for workers? A: It emphasizes that California law requires meal breaks to be truly off-duty, and employers must pay additional compensation whenever employees are not provided that opportunity. If you have questions about California labor law, filing a California class action, or wage and hour violations, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago. [GN] DOMINION ENERGY: Amended Bid for Certification in "Arble" Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Stephanie Arble, et al., Plaintiffs, v. East Ohio Gas Company, dba Dominion Energy Ohio, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-CV-747 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Benita Y. Pearson of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denied the Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiff Stephanie Arble filed a purported collective action against Defendant East Ohio Gas Company (doing business as Dominion Energy Ohio) on April 26, 2024. She alleged that Defendant failed to pay earned wages to her and similarly situated employees in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Following a year of discovery, conferences, and motions resolution, the Plaintiff (alongside opt-in Plaintiffs Cynthia Beckler and Kristi Grossholz) moved for amended class certification and Court-supervised notice under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The Plaintiff sought a Court order defining the FLSA class as: All current and former hourly employees and those working in call center positions who were required to log on to and boot up Defendant's systems and applications prior to the start of their shifts that were employed by either Defendant at any time in the period measured from three years prior to the filing of the Complaint to the present who did not receive any compensation for hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek or overtime payment at a rate of one and one-half times their Regular Rate of Pay for all hours worked in a workweek in excess of 40. The Plaintiff also sought: (1) implementation of Court-supervised notice of the FLSA claims to the proposed class; and (2) an order requiring Defendant to identify all potential opt-in Plaintiffs and their contact information; and (3) a 45-day opt-in period. The Sixth Circuit mandates a strong likelihood of similarity before Court-supervised notice is appropriate. The standard requires a showing greater than the one necessary to create a genuine issue of fact, but less than the one necessary to show a preponderance. To establish similar situation for FLSA purposes, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to support an inference that she has actual knowledge about other employee's job duties, pay structures, hours worked, and whether they were paid overtime hours. The Plaintiff contended she submitted enough evidence to establish a strong likelihood that there are potential opt-in plaintiffs who are similarly situated. She supported this argument with: (1) a copy of Defendant's employee expectations handbook; (2) employee performance records; (3) employee earnings statements; and (4) the Plaintiff's sworn declarations. Defendant countered that the Plaintiff failed to meet the heightened Clark standard for collective notice, arguing that the Plaintiff had not established by way of record evidence beyond that required to create a genuine issue of material fact that they are similarly situated to other call center workers. After reviewing the record, briefings, and relevant caselaw, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff had not established a strong likelihood that the putative collective action members are so similarly situated as to warrant Court-supervised notice. Granting this motion would amount to a solicitation of claims that is explicitly proscribed by the Supreme Court. The Court found that the Plaintiff's sworn declarations did not meet the heightened Clark standard for collective action certification. The submissions lacked non-conclusory evidence of: (1) the names of other similarly situated employees; (2) the dates on which the Plaintiff observed violations of those other employees' FLSA rights; (3) the Plaintiff's basis of knowledge for such allegations; and (4) why the Plaintiff's observations broadly extend to Defendant's other call centers, whether within Ohio or nationwide. The Court further found that the employee expectations handbook was not connected to the Plaintiff's claim that putative members are so widespread and similarly situated as to warrant Court-supervised notice. The Plaintiff did not rationally explain how requiring employees to arrive to work on time and be available to start work at the beginning of their shift constitutes an FLSA-violating policy. The Court noted that the Plaintiff failed to provide justification for extending notice to employees at Defendant's call centers across the country. The Plaintiff offered no evidence of how other call centers are even staffed or managed, let alone how such similarity should necessitate notice to all putative members. The purpose of the similarly situated inquiry is to determine whether the merits of other employee claims would be similar to the merits of the original plaintiff's claims - so that collective litigation would yield efficient resolution in one proceeding of common issues of law and fact arising from the same alleged discriminatory activity. Accordingly, the Court determined that the Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of a strong likelihood of similarly situated employees as required under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). Without more, neither Defendant nor the Court can be burdened with the Plaintiff's responsibilities to name and join parties to this dispute. Notice to employees who are not eligible to join this litigation would amount to claim solicitation that the Court declined to undertake. Therefore, the Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Class Certification was denied. The case will proceed with Stephanie Arble, Cynthia Beckler, and Kristi Grossholz as named Plaintiffs. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eZSeCi from PacerMonitor DOW INC: Investor Sue Over Misleading Information on Tariffs ------------------------------------------------------------ Chloe Meley, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that a group of Dow Inc. investors filed a lawsuit at the end of August accusing the chemical manufacturer of failing to properly disclose the impact of tariffs on its business. This is the first investor class action linked to President Donald Trump's tariff onslaught that upended global trade, according to lawyers, forced companies to reevaluate entire supply chains and resulted in profit warnings across sectors. It probably won't be the last. As the impact of tariffs starts to feed through to companies' results and share prices, more investors may say they've been deceived by overly upbeat messaging, exposing firms to potential litigation and prompting them to seek directors and officers liability coverage known as D&O insurance. "I view the Dow case as an example of plaintiffs' lawyers seizing on a stock price decline and working backward to claim that generalized statements were somehow misleading because they did not predict the future," said Edmund Polubinski, partner at law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell. Securities class actions tend to reflect predominant themes in the financial markets. During the Covid-19 pandemic, lawsuits were filed against companies for downplaying the impact of dwindling demand during lockdowns. More recently, lawyers have noticed an increase in filings related to cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence, with some being sued for "AI washing," or misrepresenting their AI capabilities. A few months into a whirlwind of changing tariffs and sudden trade deals, the litigation risk is growing. For companies, this is a minefield. Beyond the financial impact of levies themselves, an uncertain environment can delay investments and damage consumer confidence. That hurts visibility and puts companies at greater risk of investors noticing a discrepancy between outlooks and actual performance. "Plaintiff's counsel are well versed in -- and I'm being a little facetious here -- taking advantage of these types of market disruptions and finding a hook to allege that a company did something wrong in the way that they managed it or communicated about it," Kelly Thoerig, product leader in the Professional & Executive Risk division at insurance brokerage firm Lockton Inc., said in an interview. That's creating a new opportunity in the insurance market. Wayne Imrie, head of London Market Wholesale Executive Risks at insurer Beazley Plc, has noticed an increase in interest from clients for relevant coverage. "In this current environment, you're probably seeing demand at its highest level because there is so much uncertainty," he said, referring to insurance coverage for directors and officers. The first port of call for companies dealing with tariff-related allegations is D&O coverage, a type of liability insurance that protects directors, officers and other senior managers from personal financial losses and legal costs if they are accused of a "wrongful act." A side of D&O coverage that protects the company itself is less in demand, though its popularity may rise. "It's rarely purchased, although let's see whether we see renewed interest in that form of coverage given these new risks," Lockton's Thoerig said. "I suspect that may change." Alongside companies and shareholders, insurers will be at the forefront of this new development. "What we are very keen to understand is, what are our clients telling the Street and how open and transparent are they being?" Imrie said. "And then, do the ongoing financial reports back up what was said, because if not, that's when investors will be upset. They don't like surprises." In Dow's case, investors said the company blamed tariffs for disappointing second-quarter results and a lowering of the dividend, despite having previously said it was well positioned to weather the levies and could support shareholder returns. Plaintiffs are seeking damages after the share price slumped in reaction to second-quarter results. "The plaintiffs' bar will surely continue to try to capitalize on stock price declines by bringing securities cases," Davis Polk's Polubinski said. "Unfortunately, any company with exposure to tariffs will face the threat of cases like this." Plaintiffs' lawyers will look back at the disclosure statements the companies have made, especially optimistic statements about the impact of the tariffs, the ability to source materials from low-tariff jurisdictions, and more disclosures or lack thereof, according to Kevin M. LaCroix, attorney and executive vice president of insurance intermediary RT ProExec. "Although my crystal ball is no better than anyone else's, I do think we will see more tariff-related securities class action lawsuits," he said in an interview. [GN] ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Court Orders More Discovery in "Bah" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as MAMADOU ALPHA BAH, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC., and ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY OF BOSTON, LLC., Defendants, C.A. No. 17-cv-12542-MLW (D. Mass.), Judge Mark L. Wolf of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice and ordered additional discovery procedures with a detailed schedule for class certification proceedings. In the September 16, 2025 Memorandum and Order the court found that on the limited, incomplete evidentiary record before it there was a meaningful question concerning whether plaintiff Mamadou Alpha Bah had proven, as required by F. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members and, therefore, it might be inappropriate to allow plaintiff's motion for class certification. However, the court found it most appropriate to allow the parties to conduct additional class discovery. Accordingly, the court denied plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification without prejudice and ordered that the parties shall confer and file, jointly if possible but separately if necessary, a proposal and schedule for reasonable additional discovery to develop an adequate record for a decision on a renewed motion for class certification. The parties conferred, but did not agree on a proposal for reasonable discovery. Therefore, they each filed statements of their proposal and the reasons for it.[1] The court finds plaintiff's proposal to be unreasonable, essentially for the reasons stated by defendants Enterprise Holdings, Inc. and Enterprise Rent-A-Car, LLC. The court finds defendants' proposal to be reasonable, and is adopting it with modifications authorizing somewhat less discovery than defendants propose. The court is also essentially adopting the parties' joint proposed schedule for completing class discovery, with modifications due to the passage of time. The court ordered that the parties shall select up to 60 putative class members for written discovery. The individuals will be selected as follows: 1/3 by defendants; 1/3 by Bah; and 1/3 randomly. If Bah fails to select his 1/3 of putative class members, defendants may identify the final 1/3 via random selection. Defendants may serve, via last known email and mailing address, written discovery requests, including up to 12 interrogatories and 5 requests for production, on each of these 60 putative class members. Discovery responses shall be due in 30 days, deliverable to defendants via email or mail. Defendants shall forward all responses to Bah's counsel. Bah may serve up to 10 requests for production upon defendants seeking documents related to the same 60 putative class members. Defendant Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company Of Boston, LLC shall produce personnel files, to the extent available, for the same 60 individuals to the extent that each such individual responds to the discovery served upon them. Defendants retain all rights to object to other specific requests on relevance, burden, and other grounds. After receipt of the written discovery, defendants may select up to 20 of the 60 putative class members for deposition. Bah reports that he does not anticipate taking any depositions of any additional putative class members. He shall, therefore, request leave of court if defendants do not agree that he may do so. Bah may take up to 3 depositions of individuals who worked for Enterprise Boston during the relevant time period. Each deposition shall be limited to 4 hours on the record, absent agreement by the parties or leave of court. The court ordered that written discovery requests shall be served by December 12, 2025, written discovery responses shall be served by January 16, 2026, the parties shall identify deponents by February 27, 2026, and discovery shall be completed by July 31, 2026. Plaintiff shall file any renewed motion for class certification by August 31, 2026. Defendants shall file any opposition by September 30, 2026. Any reply shall be filed by October 9, 2026. The Parties shall file brief joint reports regarding the status of discovery on March 31, 2026, May 29, 2026, and July 31, 2026. A full-text copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B6PepM from Pacermonitor.com FIRST CHOICE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $1.225-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that First Choice Dental has agreed to pay $1,225,000 to settle a class action lawsuit over an October 2023 cyberattack that allegedly compromised private patient information. The First Choice Dental class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on September 30, 2025, and covers all individuals in the United States whose private information was implicated during the October 2023 data incident. Per court documents, about 159,145 people are covered by the class action settlement. The court-approved website for the First Choice Dental data breach settlement can be found at https://www.FCDGDataSettlement.com/. First Choice Dental settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form have multiple options for reimbursement. Per the settlement website, those who submit documented proof of out-of-pocket expenses resulting from the October 2023 data breach are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $6,000. Expenses covered by the cash reimbursement may include those related to identity theft, fees for credit repair services, costs of replacing IDs, and credit monitoring costs. In lieu of a documented-loss payment, class members may submit a claim form to receive a one-time cash payment of $50. Under this option, no proof is required to receive a cash payment, the settlement website says. The class action settlement website adds that the amount each class member will receive in monetary compensation may become pro-rated, depending on the number of valid claims submitted and the total costs associated with settlement administration, attorney's fees, and service awards. In addition to either monetary reimbursement option, all class members who submit a valid claim form are eligible to enroll in three free years of CyEx Medical Shield Monitoring, the website shares. To submit a First Choice Dental settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. Consumers who believe they may be a class member but did not receive a class action settlement notice can contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and receive their login ID. Alternatively, a class member can download a PDF copy of the claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the address listed near the top of the form. First Choice Dental settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by January 28, 2026. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the First Choice Dental settlement at a hearing on January 12, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to consumers only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The First Choice Dental class action lawsuit alleged that an unauthorized party targeted the dental care provider's website in October 2023 and accessed private patient data in an apparent extortion attempt. According to court documents, the patient information impacted by the data breach included, but was not limited to, names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, passport and driver's license numbers, credit and debit card numbers, financial account information and patient medical history. [GN] MODERNIZING MEDICINE: Faces E.F. Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ E.F., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by her parent and guardian ANDREW FRAM, Plaintiff v. MODERNIZING MEDICINE, INC., and CURALTA FOOT & ANKLE PENN, P.C., Defendants, Case No. 9:25-cv-81323-AMC (S.D. Fla., October 24, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendants for negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendant ModMed is an electronic health records provider that collects a wide variety of information from its clients across the country. Defendant Curalta is a group of podiatry offices located in Pennsylvania, offering foot and ankle care. According to the complaint, the Defendants recently experienced an intrusion on their network, allowing cybercriminals to exfiltrate Plaintiff and Class Members' sensitive Private Information. Both Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") were exposed as a result of the Data Breach, this information included: Plaintiff's full name, address, date of birth, phone number, email address, health insurance information, and medical information (such as medical record number, patient account number, date(s) of service, provider and practice name, billing/diagnostic codes, prescription/medication information, and diagnosis and treatment information). On October 17, 2025, Defendant ModMed notified Plaintiff and Class Members about the Data Breach that occurred between July 9, 2025, and July 10, 2025. The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendants' inadequate data security practices. The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Pompton Lakes, New Jersey. She was a patient at Curalta.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com MODERNIZING MEDICINE: Greger Files Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- VICKI GREGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MODERNIZING MEDICINE, INC., and CURALTA FOOT & ANKLE PENN, P.C., Defendants, Case No. 9:25-cv-81319 (S.D. Fla., October 24, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendants for negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendant ModMed is an electronic health records provider that collects a wide variety of information from its clients across the country. Defendant Curalta is a group of podiatry offices located in Pennsylvania, offering foot and ankle care. Plaintiff Vicki Greger is a citizen and resident of Penllyn, Pennsylvania, and was a patient of Curalta. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members have entrusted the Defendants with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI"), which were impacted by a data breach. Defendants recently experienced an intrusion on their network, allowing cybercriminals to exfiltrate Plaintiff and Class Members' sensitive Private Information. Both PII and PHI were exposed as a result of the Data Breach, this information included: Plaintiff's full name, address, date of birth, phone number, email address, health insurance information, and medical information (such as medical record number, patient account number, date(s) of service, provider and practice name, billing/diagnostic codes, prescription/medication information, and/or diagnosis and treatment information). On October 17, 2025, Defendant ModMed notified Plaintiff and Class Members about the Data Breach that occurred between July 9, 2025 and July 10, 2025. The Defendants, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendants' inadequate data security practices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com streisfeld@kolawyers.com MONTEREY MUSHROOMS: Related Cases Consolidated with Smith Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA SMITH, v. MONTEREY MUSHROOMS, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-08213-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=hyfrMf at no extra charge.[CC] NEW YORK: O'Donnell Files Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, et al. The case is styled as O'Donnell & Sons, Inc., on behalf of itself and all persons similarly situated v. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, The State of New York, Amanda Hiller, in her capacity as Acting Tax Commissioner of the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, Case No. 7:25-cv-08874 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as 950 Constitutional - State Statute. The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance -- https://www.tax.ny.gov/ -- is the department of the New York state government responsible for taxation and revenue, including handling all tax forms and publications, and dispersing tax revenue to other agencies and counties within New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Quartararo, Esq. PAUL QUARTARARO, ESQ., PLLC 3278 Franklin Avenue, Suite 5 Millbrook, NY 12545 Phone: (845) 605-1355 Fax: (845) 605-1363 Email: paulq@qualaw.com NPAS SOLUTIONS: Otiniano TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Aldo Otiniano, Individually and on behalf of all Others similarly situated v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, Case No. 25-018747-CA-01 was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit, Miami Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Oct. 27, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-24955-KMW to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. NPAS -- https://www.npasolutionsllc.com/ -- is an accounting firm specializing in financial management for nonprofits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. Mitchell David Hansen, Esq. Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com mitchell@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Drew Patrick O'Malley, Esq. SPENCER FANE LLP 201 E. Franklin Street, Suite 2150 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 424-3509 Email: domalley@spencerfane.com PALOMAR HEALTH MEDICAL: Mills Files Suit in S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Palomar Health Medical Group. The case is styled as Karen Mills, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Palomar Health Medical Group, Viatris, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-02897-DMS-DDL (S.D. Cal., Oct. 27, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. Palomar Health -- https://www.palomarhealthmedicalgroup.org/ -- provides primary and specialty care to promote health in the communities we serve in North San Diego County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jae Kook Kim, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 117 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91105 Phone: (626) 550-1250 Fax: (619) 756-6991 Email: ekim@lcllp.com PLAZA DE LA RAZA CHILD: Say Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plaza De La Raza Child Development Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Breeana r. Say, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Plaza De La Raza Child Development Services, Inc., Case No. 25STCV31664 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 27, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Plaza De La Raza Child Development Services, Inc., -- https://dominguezlandscapingservice.com/ -- is a commercial landscape company servicing the Sacramento and surrounding areas since 1983.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com RAMKO INJECTION INC: La Rosa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ramko Injection, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Justin De La Rosa, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ramko Injection, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0015963 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Oct. 27, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Ramko Injection, Inc. -- https://www.ramko-inj.com/ -- is a full-service custom plastic injection molding facility.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com REPUBLIC NATIONAL: Meraz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Republic National Distributing Company, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Julian A. Meraz, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Republic national distributing company, LLC, Young's Market Company LLC, Case No. 25STCV31668 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 27, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Republic National Distributing Company, LLC (RNDC) -- https://www.rndc-usa.com/ -- is the second largest beverage alcohol distributor of premium wine and spirits in the US.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com STUBHUB INC: Face Class Action Over "FanProtect Guarantee" ---------------------------------------------------------- Ashley King, writing for Digital Music News, reports that a Taylor Swift fan leads a class action lawsuit against StubHub over its "FanProtect Guarantee," which the company allegedly refuses to honor. A disgruntled Taylor Swift fan is the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed against StubHub over allegations that the company refuses to honor its "FanProtect Guarantee," leaving fans with obviously "inferior" seats after they spent thousands on prime seating. StubHub's "FanProtect Guarantee" promises buyers that tickets they purchase on the platform are valid. If they are found otherwise, the company promises to "find you comparable or better tickets to the event" or offer a refund or credit. However, the fine print is more nuanced; "comparable or better" is determined at StubHub's "sole discretion" based on "cost, quality, availability, and other factors." Despite StubHub citing its "FanProtect Guarantee" as a reason concertgoers should do business with the company, StubHub allegedly refused to honor the policy due to the easy outs present in its fine print. According to the lawsuit, that left fans with subpar seating at exorbitant prices previously paid for top-tier arrangements. "With less than forty minutes until the once-in-a-lifetime concert began, and with no alternative option or recourse provided by the defendant, Ms. Christensen was forced to use the inferior tickets that StubHub provided," write the plaintiff's attorneys. "StubHub exploits the consumers' lack of alternatives and coerces them into using tickets that are significantly less valuable than those they purchased." According to Christensen's lawyers, she's far from the only fan to have the wool pulled over their eyes by StubHub's policy. The lawsuit asserts that the company uses it to convince consumers to use the platform, but "routinely and knowingly provides inferior tickets" or "refuses to offer refunds." "We are aware of and take seriously all customer concerns relating to our FanProtect Guarantee," said a StubHub spokesperson in a statement to Billboard last month. "While we cannot comment on ongoing litigation, our commitment is to fair resolution in every valid case, guided by transparency and customer trust." The class action lawsuit seeks to represent "hundreds of thousands if not millions" of people whom it claims have faced similar treatment from StubHub. However, the lawsuit was only filed in Washington state, where Christensen resides—which could hamper plans to represent a larger class in the matter. Further, StubHub's terms of service require individual arbitration, which does not permit the consolidation of similar cases. Whether Christensen's case will gain traction against the ticketing reseller remains to be seen. [GN] SYNOPSYS INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Statements ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Synopsys, Inc. ("Synopsys" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SNPS) securities between December 4, 2024 and September 9, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the extent to which the Company's increased focus on artificial intelligence customers, which require additional customization, was deteriorating the economics of its Design IP business; (2) that, as a result, "certain road map and resource decisions" were unlikely to "yield their intended results;" (3) that the foregoing had a material negative impact on financial results; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Synopsys should contact the Firm prior to the December 30, 2025 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN] UNKNOWN SALINAS: Smith Files Suit in W.D. Michigan -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unknown Salinas, et al. The case is styled as Derrick Lee Cardello-Smith #267009, probable cause conference litigator on behalf of 24,000 MDOC prisoners similarly situated contrary to state law v. Unknown Salinas, Inspector; Unknown Garcia, Deputy Warden ICF; Ionia Correctional Facility Staff; Kinross Correctional Facility Staff; Unknown Parties,, named as Telephone Restriction Staff Supervisors - KCF; Michigan Department of Corrections; Unknown Parties #1, named as Hearings Division of the Michigan Department of Corrections; Unknown Parties #2, named as MDOC probable cause conference release mediators, Case No. 2:25-cv-00246-HYJ-MV (W.D. Mich., Oct. 27, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Petitions - Prison Conditions for Prisoner Civil Rights.[BN] The Plaintiffs appears pro se. UPSAL GARDEN: Philadelphia Tenants Allege Illegal Rent Collection ----------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Moselle, writing for WHYY, reports that the owner of a Mt. Airy apartment complex is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging that he illegally collected rent from tenants while the property posed a "danger to life," violating Philadelphia law. The lawsuit, filed Monday, November 3, in Common Pleas Court, alleges that ownership continued to demand and collect rent at Upsal Garden Apartments despite the property being declared "unsafe" by the city's Department of Licenses and Inspections. The designation, issued in August, was the result of "deteriorated stone foundation, fractured exterior masonry walls and deteriorated interior floor joists" -- conditions the department determined were an "immediate danger or hazard to health, safety and welfare," according to public records. City and state law requires landlords to keep their properties safe and habitable. In Philadelphia, violators are barred from collecting rent until the property is compliant. To date, ownership has not addressed the violation. "It's hard to sleep at night after you see a declaration from L&I that the property is unsafe and that the building may need to be vacated or demolished if the violations are not corrected," said the Upsal Garden Tenants Council in a statement. "We just want real accountability and the conditions fixed. Everyone should get to live with dignity, and we won't stop until that's the reality for all residents here." The complaint was filed on behalf of three tenants at the 144-unit complex, which was built in 1927. They are represented by the Public Interest Law Center, Face to Face Legal Center and John T. Crutchlow, partner at Youman & Caputo LLC. The tenants -- Geraldine Brown, Carl Williams and Dennis Scott -- filed the lawsuit following the "unsafe" designation in August. But the city has cited Upsal Garden Apartments for nearly 80 code violations over the past five years, according to the lawsuit. Over the past year, the seven-building complex has failed at least seven inspections conducted by L&I. Scott, a 70-year-old military veteran, has lived at Upsal Garden since 2019 and dealt with a "collapsed bathroom ceiling, recurring leaks, mold growth, and deterioration of the walls, ceilings and floors," according to the complaint. [GN] VOGUE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Suit Over OGX Hair Products ------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Silvia Garcia filed a class action lawsuit against Vogue International LLC, d/b/a OGX. Why: The plaintiff claims OGX hair products are sold in oversized containers that contain non-functional slack-fill. Where: The OGX class action was filed in California federal court. A class action lawsuit claims OGX products are sold in opaque containers that do not reasonably inform consumers of the actual amount of product inside. OGX sells a variety of hair and body care products, including shampoos, conditioners, treatments, and styling products. Plaintiff Silvia Garcia filed the OGX class action lawsuit on Aug. 3 in California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to Garcia, OGX hair products are sold in containers that are up to half empty, deceiving consumers into paying for empty space. The class action lawsuit argues that the company's packaging is systematically misleading, representing the product as adequately filled when it contains an unlawful amount of empty space, also known as "slack-fill." "The front of the Product's packaging does not include any information that would reasonably apprise Plaintiff of the quantity of product relative to the size of the container, such as a fill line," the OGX class action lawsuit says. OGX underfills products to deceive consumers, class action alleges Garcia argues Vogue International underfills its OGX products to save money and deceive consumers into purchasing them over competitors' products. The class action lawsuit claims that Vogue International's slack-fill scheme harms consumers and competitors who have implemented labeling changes to alert consumers to the true amount of product in each container. Garcia argues Vogue International's actions violate the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law and the False Advertising Law. She claims consumers who have purchased OGX products have suffered injuries due to the false, unfair, deceptive, unlawful and misleading practices. Garcia wants to represent anyone in California who purchased an OGX product containing non-functional slack-fill in the past four years. The plaintiff is suing for violations of California's consumer protection laws and seeks certification of the class action, as well as damages, restitution, disgorgement, fees, costs, and a jury trial. Meanwhile, Zuru LLC is facing a similar class action lawsuit accusing the company of selling Haircare products in deceptive, oversized packaging. Garcia is represented by Scott J. Ferrell and Victoria C. Knowles of Pacific Trial Attorneys APC. The OGX class action lawsuit is Garcia v. Vogue International LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01987, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. [GN] WESTERN EXPRESS: Agrees to Settle TCPA Class Action for $2.7-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Aljets of ClaimDepot reports consumers who received prerecorded calls from Western Express on a cell phone on a number previously assigned to someone else and did not provide their phone number to Western Express or through a job inquiry website may be eligible to submit a claim for up to $120 from a class action settlement. Western Express Inc. agreed to pay $2,718,945 to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending prerecorded calls to cell phone numbers without proper consent. The class consists of an estimated 14,697 phone numbers. Who is eligible for a TCPA settlement payout? Class members must meet the following criteria: -- Their telephone number was assigned to a cellular phone at any time between May 28, 2020, and Sept. 19, 2025. -- They received at least one prerecorded call from Western Express during the qualifying class period. -- They did not provide their telephone number to Western Express or any of its vendors and at no time during the class period submitted it through a website seeking Western Express employment information. -- Their cell number was previously assigned to another person who did provide that number to Western Express or its vendors. How much will the class action payment be? Pro rata cash payment: Eligible claimants will receive a pro rata cash payment of up to $120. The settlement administrator may reduce the final payment amount depending on the total number of valid claims. The settlement payment amount is per person and not per call or phone number. How to claim a class action rebate To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a claim form online or by mail. Class members can submit the online claim form or generate a pdf claim form to print and mail. The deadline to file a claim is Dec. 15, 2025. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Western Express TCPA Settlement, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration, PO Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 Required claim information -- Class Member ID from official settlement notice required to submit a claim online or by mail. -- Claimants must provide the telephone number or numbers that received at least one pre-recorded call from Western Express. Payout options All approved claimants will receive a paper check, mailed to the address provided on the claim form. $2.72 million TCPA settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund of $2,718,945 will include: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees: Not to exceed $906,315 -- Attorneys' litigation expenses: $30,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: $5,000 each ($10,000 total) -- Payments to approved claimants: Remaining settlement funds (up to $120 per approved claim) Important dates -- Deadline to file a claim: Dec. 15, 2025 -- Deadline to opt-out: Dec. 15, 2025 -- Final approval hearing: Court to schedule at a later date When is the Western Express TCPA settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will issue payments to eligible claimants approximately 60 days after it completes claim processing and the court grants final approval. Why did this class action settlement happen? This class action lawsuit alleged Western Express violated the TCPA by making prerecorded calls to cell phone numbers without consent. The company denies any wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the expense and risks involved in continued litigation. [GN] ********* 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 ***