251113.mbx

251113.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, November 13, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 227 Headlines 19 WYCKOFF SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diaz Alleges AEROTEK INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Aguirre Alleges BLAZESOFT LTD: Garnder Sues Over Online Gambling Platform CAL-MAINE FOODS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Price Fixing CHERRINGTON MEDIA: Vant Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California CLASSICA CRUISE: Love Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI CLOROX COMPANY: D'Alois Sues Over Mislabeled HEPA Air Purifiers COLD WAR CITIZENS: Wins Partial Dismissal of Claims in "Moulton" CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bordelon Alleges CVS PHARMACY: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharge DAN DAN: Cazares Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind DEEPINTENT TECHNOLOGIES: Cavalier Balks at Data Privacy Violations DEJA VU: Wins Preliminary Approval for "Hoffman" Class Settlement DOMINGUEZ LANDSCAPE: Caceres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DOOR RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind DOW JONES: Dawkins Sues Over Data Privacy Violations DRIFTER'S KITCHEN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Duran Alleges DUN & BRADSTREET: Lorenc Sues Over Unlawfully Listed Numbers DWEL U INC: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ESSE HEALTH: Missouri Court Consolidates Data Breach Suits EVERLAKE LIFE INSURANCE: Cardona Suit Removed to C.D. California FISERV INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit FLORIDA: Barde Sues Over Improper Refusal of Cataract Surgery FOUR POINTS: Mosby Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages FRIEND OF A FARMER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bazan Alleges GEICO: Court Denies Reconsideration Bids in "See" GENERAL MOTORS: Kriseman Sues Over Defective Vehicle GODADDY OPERATING: Collect Data Without Consent, Hughes Claims GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE: Newkirk Sues Over Data Security Incident HOME DEPOT: ADA Suit Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set Jan. 14 INGRAM MICRO: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Brown Alleges JAGUAR LAND: Agrees to Settle Turbocharger Defect Class Action LEGACY HEALTH: Ramsey-Wright Suit Removed to W.D. Washington LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Lovell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. M & C PROVISIONS: Maria Sues to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages MACKENZIE FINANCIAL: Ontario Court Certifies Data Breach Class Suit MAISON SOLUTIONS: Grabar Law Investigates Securities Claims MERUS NV: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to GEnmad A/S MIDDLESEX WATER: To Pay NJ Residents $4.9MM PFAS Class Settlement MODERNIZING MEDICINE: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Fram Says MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismisses Deceptive Ad Class Suit MOUNTAIN HARDWEAR: Henry Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website NAKED NUTRITION: Faces Class Suit Over Mass Gainer Protein Powder NATURAL FOODS: Cole Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind NEWELL BRANDS: Bowman Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind NEWREZ LLC: Castellon Sues Over Fraudulent Loan Scheme NORDSTROM INC: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind NUU COLLECTIVE: Davis Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind PENTAGON FEDERAL: Court Certifies "Pay-to-Pay" Fees Class Suit PROSPER FUNDING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Butler Alleges ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES: Eddings Suit Transferred to C.D. California ROYAL UNITED MORTGAGE: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia SCHOLASTIC INC: Samson Suit Removed to W.D. Washington SECURIX LLC: Ocean Springs Sues Over License Plate Reader Program SIX FLAGS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Cedar Fair Merger SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Allen Sues Over Data Privacy Violations TESLA GENERAL: Faces Class Suit Over UM/UIM Benefits Underpayment TFG HOLDINGS: Agrees to $4.8MM Multi-State Class Settlement U.S. PAROLE: Court Denies Prelim Injunction Bid in "Braxton" UNITED BIOSOURCE: Loses Bifurcation Request in Steamfitters' Suit UNIVERSE CC INC: Madueno Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Data Breach Class Action Suit UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Data Breach Class Action Suit VICTORIA'S SECRET: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Wurm Suit Claims WINCO HOLDINGS: Wolford Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WITHUMSMITH+BROWN PC: Carmer Sues Over Drop in Share Price ZUMPANO PATRICIOS: Judge Dismisses Cybersecurity Class Action Suit ********* 19 WYCKOFF SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Diaz Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ ALDRIAN DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 19 WYCKOFF SERVICES LLC d/b/a SEA WOLF BROOKLYN; BROOKLYN ACQUISITION HOLDING LLC; and KEVIN CONTRERAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06072-NCM-VMS (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Diaz was employed by the Defendants as a server. 19 Wyckoff Services LLC d/b/a Sea Wolf Brooklyn is a New York limited liability company that owns and operates a restaurant called Sea Wolf in Bushwick, Brooklyn. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 45 Broadway, Suite 320 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 981-9587 AEROTEK INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Aguirre Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- DAVID AGUIRRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AEROTEK, INC.; SYENSQO USA LLC; ENERGY SOLUTIONS (US) LLC; ALLEGIS GROUP, INC.; ALLEGIS GROUP HOLDINGS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV31699 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 30, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Aguirre was employed by the Defendants as a staff. Aerotek, Inc. provides recruiting and staffing services. The Company specializes in consulting, direct hire, temporary staffing, training, direct placement. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah H. Cohen, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 Email: sarah@tomorrowlaw.com BLAZESOFT LTD: Garnder Sues Over Online Gambling Platform --------------------------------------------------------- BAILEY GARDNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLAZESOFT LTD.; BLAZEGAMES INC.; SSPC LLC D/B/A SPORTZINO; SCPS LLC D/B/A ZULA; and SOCIAL GAMING LLC D/B/A FORTUNE COINS, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00993 (D. Utah, Nov. 2, 2025) alleges violation of the Utah's Gambling Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants own, operate, and receive significant revenue from their online "sweepstakes" casinos available at www.sportzino.com, www.zulacasino.com, www.fortunecoins.com, www.yaycasino.com, and www.yaycasino.us, where they offer casino-style sportsbooks and slots to anyone willing to spend real money wagering on them (the "Blazegames Gambling Platform"). While the Defendants advertise and promote the Blazegames Gambling Platform to persons in Utah as a legitimate online business, giving it an aura of legitimacy and legality to Plaintiff and Class members, the Blazegames Gambling Platform is actually a dangerous and plainly unlawful gambling enterprise, says the suit. Blazesoft Ltd. specializes in the design and development of social games, focusing on creating engaging and innovative gaming experiences. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot O. Jackson, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 E-mail: ejackson@hedinllp.com - and - David W. Scofield, Esq. PETERS ❘ SCOFIELD A Professional Corporation 7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, UT 84093-6160 Telephone: (801) 322-2002 E-mail: dws@psplawyers.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 140 Broadway, FL 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com CAL-MAINE FOODS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Price Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------- DiCello Levitt, Cohen & Malad, Kirby McInerney, and Lockridge Grindal Nauen have filed a class action lawsuit targeting alleged price fixing in the U.S. egg industry. According to the complaint, the country's largest egg producers and related entities conspired to artificially inflate the price of conventional eggs, costing retailers and consumers hundreds of millions of dollars. Filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, the lawsuit accuses Cal-Maine Foods, Rose Acre Farms, Versova Holdings, Hillandale Farms, Daybreak Foods, Urner Barry Publications, Egg Clearinghouse, United Egg Producers, and others of engaging in a coordinated scheme to fix, raise, and maintain the price of conventional shell eggs nationwide. The complaint details how the defendants allegedly manipulated industry price benchmarks and exchanged competitively sensitive information, resulting in unprecedented price spikes that far outpaced any legitimate supply disruptions. "This case is about restoring competition and fairness to a market that touches every American household," said Partner Greg Asciolla, Chair of DiCello Levitt's Antitrust and Competition Litigation Practice. "Egg producers and their co-conspirators have used their market power and control over industry benchmarks to drive up prices, leaving retailers and consumers to foot the bill. Now more than ever, the cost of groceries is a critical issue for families, and we are proud to represent those harmed by this conduct." The lawsuit alleges that, beginning no later than January 2022, the defendants used their dominant market positions and control over price reporting agencies to coordinate price increases, even as production costs fell and supply disruptions eased. The complaint further notes that egg prices dropped dramatically only after news broke of a federal antitrust investigation into the industry in March 2025 -- strongly suggesting that prior prices were the result of coordinated, anticompetitive conduct. The proposed class includes all persons and entities who purchased shell eggs directly from one or more of the defendant producers since January 1, 2022. The lawsuit seeks damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and other remedies under federal antitrust law. The case is King Kullen Grocery Co., Inc. v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02274-JMS-MJD in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. A copy of the complaint is available here. The DiCello Levitt team on the matter includes Greg Asciolla, Alex Barnett, and Jonathan Crevier. About DiCello Levitt At DiCello Levitt, we're dedicated to achieving justice for our clients through class action, environmental, mass tort, securities, financial services, antitrust, business-to-business, public client, whistleblower, personal injury, and civil and human rights litigation. Our lawyers are highly respected for their ability to litigate and win cases -- whether by trial, settlement, or otherwise -- for people who have suffered harm, global corporations that have sustained significant economic losses, and public clients seeking to protect their citizens' rights and interests. Every day, we put our reputations -- and our capital -- on the line for our clients. DiCello Levitt has achieved top recognition as Plaintiffs Firm of the Year and Trial Innovation Firm of the Year by the National Law Journal, in addition to its top-tier Chambers and Benchmark ratings. For more information about the firm, including recent trial victories and case resolutions, please visit www.dicellolevitt.com. [GN] CHERRINGTON MEDIA: Vant Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cherrington Media, LLC. The case is styled as Elizabeth Vant, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Cherrington Media, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-02918-JO-VET (S.D. Cal., Oct. 28, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com CLASSICA CRUISE: Love Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI ----------------------------------------------------------- Janet Love, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLASSICA CRUISE OPERATOR, LTD, INC. d/b/a MARGARITAVILLE AT SEA, Case No. 6:25-cv-02076 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 28, 2025), is brought on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") (together with PII, "Private Information) and that was impacted in a cyber incident (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"), arising from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and Its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. A wide variety of Private Information was implicated in the Data Breach, including potentially: names, addresses, dates of birth, financial information, passport details, Social Security numbers, health and medical information and other information4. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which it was hired to protect. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The sensitive nature of the data exposed through the Data Breach signifies that Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered irreparable harm. Plaintiff and Class Members have lost the ability to control their private information and are subject to an increased risk of identity theft. The Defendant, 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. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a customer of Defendant and entrusted her Private Information to Defendant in connection with booking and/or sailing aboard Margaritaville cruises. The Defendant is a cruiseline "where world-class dining, famous boat drinks, vibrant entertainment, and ahhh-worthy spas come together with iconic Margaritaville experiences."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Leanna Loginov. Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com lloginov@shamisgentile.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com CLOROX COMPANY: D'Alois Sues Over Mislabeled HEPA Air Purifiers --------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERTA D'ALOIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CLOROX COMPANY; and HAMILTON BEACH BRANDS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-09431 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2025) is an action arising from the false and misleading representations that the Defendants made for years about their HEPA air purifier, along with their respective replacement filters. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants represented that the Air Purifier was equipped with High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters when in fact they were not. Reasonable consumers have had no opportunity to find this out for themselves because they cannot conduct HEPA standard testing. The Defendants knew this, but continued hocking their wares, making a killing selling the Air Purifier and replacement filters since the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Defendants' false and misleading representations induced reasonable consumers like Plaintiff into purchasing the Products. Had Plaintiff and all other similarly situated consumers known that -- contrary to Defendants' knowing representations -- the Products did not have HEPA filters, they would have paid less for the Products or not purchased them at all, says the suit. The Clorox Company manufactures household products. The Company offers cleaning, water filtration, bags, wraps and containers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Luke Sironski-White, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com lsironski@bursor.com - and - Greg Sinderbrand, Esq. SINDERBRAND LAW GROUP, P.C. 2829 Townsgate Road, Suite 100 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (818) 370-3912 E-mail: greg@sinderbrandlaw.com COLD WAR CITIZENS: Wins Partial Dismissal of Claims in "Moulton" ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Sheryl Moulton, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Cold War Citizens Care, LLC, Cold War Citizens Healthcare of America, Cold War Citizens Health Care, LLC, Olin Martin, David Babatope, and Jacob T. Smith, Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-09891-MGL (D.S.C.), Judge Mary Geiger Lewis of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Aiken Division, granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the putative collective and class action complaint. Plaintiff Sheryl Moulton filed this putative collective and class action against Defendants alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act (SCPWA), S.C. Code Ann. Section 41-10-10 et seq. The corporate defendants Cold War Citizens Care, LLC (CWCC), Cold War Citizens Healthcare of America (CWCHA), and Cold War Citizens Health Care, LLC (CWCHC) are doing business in Aiken County in the State of South Carolina as Cold War Citizens Council. Smith is the President of the corporate defendants, and Martin is the Director of the corporate defendants. The corporate defendants run a home health care company that provides home health services under the Department of Labor's Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) Program. Under the EEOICPA Program, Department of Energy employees can receive home healthcare services to assist in caring for injuries they suffered in service of nuclear facilities in the United States of America. Moulton is a home health worker who worked for Defendants beginning in or about 2020 caring for her husband, Mike Moulton, a former nuclear worker who receives home health care services through the EEOICPA Program. At all times during the relevant period, Defendants had actual knowledge of all hours {Moulton] and all other putative class members worked each shift through Home Health Aide Shift Reports. However, at no time during the relevant period did Defendants ever pay Moulton or any other putative class member any wages or any other form of compensation for hours worked for Defendants. Although Defendants billed the United States of America at least one hundred dollars an hour for the services of its home health workers, Defendants only paid their home health workers between ten and twelve dollars an hour and did not pay overtime compensation for hours worked over forty hours per week. According to the complaint, Defendants and their management had actual or constructive knowledge that Moulton and all other putative class members were Defendants' employees and not independent contractors and were thus entitled to compensation. Defendants first argued the complaint contains all of the hallmarks of a shotgun pleading and should be dismissed. They asserted the underlying allegations uniformly (and nonspecifically) state Defendants, without prescribing any specific act or injury to any particular Defendant, and Moulton provides no detail as to how each Defendant may be considered her employer. Moulton insisted the details of the corporate structure of the corporate defendants and how and why they act together to run Cold War Citizens Council in South Carolina when not registered to do business in South Carolina is a matter for discovery, not pleading. The Court explained that complaints that violate either Rule 8(a)(2) or Rule 10(b), or both, are often disparagingly referred to as shotgun pleadings. The unifying characteristic of all types of shotgun pleadings is that they fail to one degree or another, and in one way or another, to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests. The Court found that at this stage of the litigation, and in light of the unique business structure Moulton alleged, the complaint does not assert multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying which of the defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions. The Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss on this ground. As a preliminary matter, Defendants contended the complaint failed to allege any facts the individual defendants should be held liable in an individual capacity. Moulton acknowledged the complaint did not state clearly that the three individual defendants were each agents or owners of the corporate defendants. However, Moulton argued the complaint alleged the individual defendants not only knowingly permitted the corporate defendants to violate the law, but they also designed the corporate defendants to avoid paying Moulton and putative class members the wages they are due. The Court noted the complaint consistently referenced Defendants collectively, without distinguishing between the corporate and individual defendants. The complaint also asserted the individual defendants are personally liable for knowingly permitting the corporate defendants to characterize Moulton and putative class members as independent contractors and for designing the corporate defendants to avoid paying Moulton and putative class members the wages that they were due. Based on the foregoing allegations, the Court determined it would be premature at this early stage of the litigation to conclude Moulton is unentitled to relief from the individual defendants. Defendants maintained the doctrine of preemption applies to Moulton's SCPWA claim, which, as pleaded here, merely duplicates her overtime claim asserted under the FLSA. Moulton contended the SCPWA claim is separate and distinct from the FLSA claim because it seeks unpaid overtime wage payments that are based upon an agreed-upon hourly rate, pursuant to their fixed hourly rate, which is higher than the federal minimum wage rate. The Court explained that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that Congress prescribed exclusive remedies in the FLSA for violations of its mandates, and state law claims are preempted by the FLSA where those claims merely duplicate FLSA claims. However, the FLSA provides a floor for minimum wage and overtime and contains a savings clause. Accordingly, the FLSA does not prevent states from creating a parallel regulatory scheme that provides additional protections for employees. Moreover, claims that are separate and distinct from a plaintiff's FLSA claims are not preempted by the FLSA. The Court noted the SCPWA both creates a right and a means of enforcing that right that provides additional remedies not available under the FLSA, such as the employee's recovery for three times the amount owed, plus costs and reasonable attorney's fees. Furthermore, Plaintiffs' SCPWA claims are separate and distinct from their FLSA claim because they are seeking unpaid overtime wage payments that are based upon an agreed-upon hourly rate, which is higher than the federal minimum wage rate. The Court found it was unable to hold Moulton's claim for unpaid overtime wages based on a rate of ten to twelve dollars per hour, which is higher than the federal minimum wage, is preempted by the FLSA. The Court denied Defendants' motion relative to this subclaim. Defendants averred the factual allegations in the complaint do not identify any other category of wage (e.g., vacation, holiday, sick leave, or benefits) due or owed to Moulton or putative class members. Moulton failed to offer any substantive response in this regard. The Court observed the complaint made a single passing reference to vacation, holiday, sick leave, and other benefits. However, the complaint neglected to allege any facts in support of this assertion. Thus, even accepting the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true for purposes of this motion, Moulton failed to state a claim under the SCPWA for unpaid vacation, holiday, sick leave, and other benefits. The Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss this subclaim. Defendants also challenged Moulton's reliance on the notice provision of the SCPWA, S.C. Code Ann. Section 41-10-30, arguing no private right of action exists under such provision. Again, Moulton failed to specifically respond. The Court found Defendants were correct that Moulton is unable to pursue a private right of action for violation of the SCPWA's notice provision. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss this subclaim. Based on the foregoing discussion and analysis, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. Specifically, the motion was granted as to Moulton's SCPWA subclaims for unpaid vacation, holiday, sick leave, and other benefits and failure to provide proper notice, which were both dismissed without prejudice, and denied as to Moulton's SCPWA subclaim for unpaid overtime wages. The Court granted Moulton leave to amend her complaint as to the unpaid vacation, holiday, sick leave, and other benefits subclaim. Such amendment shall be filed within seven days after the entry of this Order. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mDPbd5 from PacerMonitor.com CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Bordelon Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- PEGGY BORDELON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-16975 (D.N.J., Oct. 28, 2025) is an action arising from the Defendant's failure to safeguard the names ("Personally Identifiable Information") and treatment cost information, treatment date information, and health insurance numbers ("Protected Health Information") (together, "Private Information") of Plaintiff and Class members which resulted in unauthorized access to its information systems from October 21, 2024 to January 13, 2025, and the compromised and unauthorized disclosure of that Private Information, causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class members. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, as a result of the Data Breach, which Defendant failed to prevent, the Private Information of Plaintiff and the proposed Class members, were stolen, including their names, treatment cost information, treatment date information, and health insurance numbers. The Defendant's failure to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class members' highly sensitive Private Information as exposed and unauthorizedly disclosed in the Data Breach violates its common law duty, New Jersey law, and Defendant's implied contract with Plaintiff and Class members to safeguard their Private Information. Conduent Business Services, LLC provides business process services. The Company offers digital payments, claims processing, benefit administration, automated tolling, regulatory compliance, and distributed learning services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com CVS PHARMACY: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Tobacco Surcharge ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Christopher Dubin filed a class action lawsuit against CVS Pharmacy Inc. Why: Dubin claims CVS illegally charged higher fees to health plan participants and their spouses due to their use of tobacco. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A CVS employee has urged a California federal court to reject the company's bid to dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging it illegally charged higher fees to health plan participants and their spouses due to their use of tobacco. Plaintiff Christopher Dubin argues the court should deny CVS' motion to dismiss because he has standing to bring the claims, Law360 reports. Dubin claims CVS imposed a $300 to $500 tobacco and nicotine surcharge on health plan participants and their spouses to receive health plan benefits without offering a reasonable alternative wellness program that would allow them to avoid the fee. He also argues CVS failed to notify him that his spouse could avoid the surcharge, which he says is enough to establish standing, according to Law360. "Plaintiff here alleges that he paid an unlawful tobacco/nicotine surcharge and therefore has an individual concrete and particularized injury-in-fact," Dubin wrote, according to Law360. "And, defendant's arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive." Lawsuit: CVS tobacco surcharge program didn't meet requirements Dubin alleges the CVS tobacco and nicotine surcharge program failed to meet federal requirements to provide a reasonable alternative standard that would allow participants to avoid the fee through a wellness program. He claims CVS specifically failed to provide a reasonable alternative standard to spouses and domestic partners, limiting it only to CVS employees, Law360 reports. In its motion to dismiss, CVS argued that Dubin misinterpreted the health plan's language, which it says applied to employees, spouses and partners enrolled in the plan. Dubin filed the class action lawsuit in June on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of consumers who were charged tobacco and nicotine surcharges under CVS health plans in the past six years. He also seeks to represent a proposed California subclass of current and former CVS workers who were assessed a tobacco and nicotine surcharge, as well as a working spouse surcharge, during the same period, Law360 reports. Meanwhile, CVS Health Corp. faced a class action lawsuit accusing the company of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited telemarketing text messages to numbers listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. The plaintiff is represented by David P. Myers, Jason Hatcher and Andriana N. Bravo of The Myers Law Group APC. The CVS tobacco surcharge class action lawsuit is Dubin v. CVS Pharmacy Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-05931, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] DAN DAN: Cazares Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------- AMELIA CAZARES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAN DAN LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01696 (E.D. Wis., Nov. 1, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.dandanmke.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Dan Dan LLC serves authentic Sichuan and Taiwanese cuisine native to mainland China and Taiwan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (718) 554-0237 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law DEEPINTENT TECHNOLOGIES: Cavalier Balks at Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ DOMINIQUE CAVALIER; NINA HARRIS; and GERALD HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEEPINTENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08949 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2025) alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"). According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in extensive web tracking of millions of Americans' healthcare-related online behaviors without those users' knowledge or consent. By surreptitiously embedding tracking software on numerous health-related websites without users' knowledge or consent, DeepIntent tags each user with a permanent identifying number, allowing DeepIntent to monitor that individual across the internet, and beyond. Through this identifier and similar tracking technologies described herein, DeepIntent collects users' specific web activity -- including websites and specific webpages visited, ads clicked, and even the text of search queries entered by the user -- allowing DeepIntent to easily ascertain information regarding users' health conditions, medical treatments, and other similarly sensitive topics. DeepIntent has accomplished this even though (and, indeed, because) virtually no consumer has ever heard of it, no consumer has ever actually consented to any of its activities in question, and no consumer has a meaningful ability to opt-out of its tracking, says the suit. DeepIntent Technologies, Inc. provides e marketing services. The Company offers an ad platform for pharma companies to reach patients and doctors. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam M. Harris, Esq. Andrew Cauchi, Esq. ISRAEL DAVID LLC 60 Broad Street, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 350-8850 Email: adam.harris@davidllc.com andrew.cauchi@davidllc.com -and- Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com DEJA VU: Wins Preliminary Approval for "Hoffman" Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Ashleigh Hoffman, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Deja vu Pizza, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00006 (D.N.D.), Judge Daniel M. Traynor of the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota granted the motion for preliminary settlement approval in a class action lawsuit. The matter came before the Court upon an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Settlement Approval filed by Plaintiff Ashleigh Hoffman on October 28, 2025. Plaintiff Hoffman requested the Court to approve the settlement between herself, the FLSA collective, and the Rule 23 class and the Defendants Deja vu Pizza, LLC, Magic Pizza, LLC, Pizza Oil, LLC, Queen City Pizza, LLC, Sun Pizza, LLC, Harold Rose, and Admir Mujakovic. The Settlement Agreement was filed as Exhibit 1 to the Motion and Memorandum. The Defendant did not oppose the Motion. The Court reviewed the record in the matter, including the proposed Settlement Agreement, and concluded the Settlement Agreement is reasonable. The Court granted the Motion for Preliminary Settlement Approval. The Settlement Agreement was preliminarily approved. The Court also ordered that the form, content, and distribution of the class notice and claim form is approved. The service award for Plaintiff Hoffman was preliminarily approved. Class Counsel's request for attorney's fees and costs was preliminarily approved. A Fairness Hearing shall take place on or about March 2026 at a date convenient for the Court and the parties. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x7OamL from PacerMonitor.com DOMINGUEZ LANDSCAPE: Caceres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dominguez Landscape Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Adolfo Caceres, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dominguez Landscape Services, Inc., Does 1 to 100, Case No. 25CV025458 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 27, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Dominguez Landscape Services, Inc. -- https://dominguezlandscapingservice.com/ -- is a commercial landscape company servicing the Sacramento and surrounding areas since 1983.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Michael Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY, LLP 100 Pine Street Suite 1250 San Diego, CA 92111 Phone: (415) 534-1911 Fax: (888) 422-5191 Email: jimt@potterhandy.com DOOR RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE DOOR RESTAURANT CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06075 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.thedoorrestaurant.nyc, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Door Restaurant Corp. owns and operates as a restaurant 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 DOW JONES: Dawkins Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ---------------------------------------------------- MONICA DAWKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01447-KES-BAM (E.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2025) alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant surreptitiously installs and operates tracking software on www.wsj.com (the "Website") without providing users with adequate notice or obtaining their informed consent. The software is intentionally deployed to accomplish Defendant's commercial objectives, including identity resolution, targeted advertising, and the monetization of consumer data. To achieve these goals, the Defendant enables third-party technologies, that function as unlawful pen registers and/or trap and trace devices, to capture detailed information about users' electronic communications such as Internet Protocol ("IP") addresses, session data, and clickstream activity in real time. These tools operate covertly and without judicial authorization, violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act where, as here, Plaintiff and Class Members did not consent to the interception, nor did Defendant secure a court order permitting such surveillance, says the suit. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. provides business news and information services. The Company offers business publications, pan-regional daily newspapers, financial weeklies, and real-time news and information. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 270-2798 Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC 40729 Village Dr., Suite 8 - 1989 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Telephone: (562) 612-1708 Email: rc@rosscornelllaw.com DRIFTER'S KITCHEN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Duran Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- DANNY DURAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DRIFTER'S KITCHEN AND BAR, INC.; and DAVID DONOFRIO, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-06058-SIL (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 29, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Duran was employed by the Defendants as a dishwasher. Drifter's Kitchen and Bar, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant located in Long Island, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 www.StillmanLegalPC.com DUN & BRADSTREET: Lorenc Sues Over Unlawfully Listed Numbers ------------------------------------------------------------ Toby Lorenc, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DUN & BRADSTREET, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-01298 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 28, 2025), is brought as a Class Action Complaint for violations of Colorado's Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act ("PTFA") against Defendant who unlawfully listed cellular telephone numbers. The Defendant has listed the cellular telephone numbers of thousands of Colorado residents in its for-sale and for-profit directories, without requesting (let alone actually receiving) affirmative consent to such listings. Thus, while Defendant profits handsomely from its unauthorized commercial listing of Plaintiff's and other Class Members' personal information, Defendant does so at the expense of Coloradans' statutory privacy rights, under the PTFA. The Defendant never requested – and Plaintiff never provided--affirmative consent, through written, oral, or electronic means, to such listing. In fact, Plaintiff has no relationship with Defendant whatsoever. The Plaintiff had never heard of Defendant and had no reasonable ability to discover Defendant's use of his personal information until shortly before filing suit. The Plaintiff brings this action to prevent Defendant from further violating the privacy rights of Colorado cell phone users and to recover statutory damages from Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's cellular telephone number was listed by Defendant in its directory. The Defendant is a data broker.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen A. Beck, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave., Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131-2800 Phone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 Email: sbeck@bursor.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: jmarchese@bursor.com - and - Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10106 Phone: (914) 874-0708 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 Email: mgirardi@bursor.com DWEL U INC: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DWEL U, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06076 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.auntsetuncles.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Dwel U, Inc. operates the website www.auntsetuncles.com offering plant based food, and retail space, located 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 ESSE HEALTH: Missouri Court Consolidates Data Breach Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Casten Clausner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. American Multispecialty Group Inc., d/b/a Esse Health, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-CV-00711-MAL (E.D. Mo.), Judge Maria A. Lanahan of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted the Defendant's Motion to Consolidate. This is a putative class action lawsuit. On May 15, 2025, Plaintiff Casten Clausner filed this putative class action lawsuit against Esse Health relating to a data security incident that occurred in April 2025. Clausner alleged that Esse Health failed to properly safeguard protected health information and personally identifiable information of patients and/or employees. The data breach allegedly caused injuries including invasion of privacy, theft of protected health information and personally identifiable information, costs of investigating or mitigating the consequences of the breach, loss of the benefit of the bargain, and risks that personally identifiable information will be misused in the future. Clausner asserted claims of negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 45. Clausner sought to represent a proposed nationwide class defined as all individuals residing in the United States whose protected health information and personally identifiable information were accessed and acquired by an unauthorized party as a result of a data breach that occurred on, or about, April 2025, as reported by Defendant. Six other putative class action lawsuits arising from the same April 2025 data breach were filed against Esse Health in Missouri state court. Esse Health removed each of those cases to this Court on June 18, 2025. They were consolidated with this action on July 14, 2025. On August 28, 2025, Esse Health removed another putative class action lawsuit arising from the same data breach from state to federal court. The case is captioned as Doering v. American Multispecialty Group, Inc., No. 4:25-cv-01302-JMD. The facts and injuries alleged in Doering were very similar to those alleged in the Related Actions. Though not all claims asserted in the Related Actions were identical, each action included claims of negligence, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. The proposed class definitions in Doering and Clausner were virtually identical. Under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if actions before the court involve common questions of law or fact, the court may consolidate the actions. A district court has broad discretion in determining whether to order consolidation. Consolidation is inappropriate if it leads to inefficiency, inconvenience, or unfair prejudice to a party. The Court found that consolidation was appropriate. The actions involved a common defendant. The actions arose from the same incident, involved similar alleged injuries, and asserted several of the same causes of action. The actions would likely involve very similar discovery, defenses, and dispositive motions. The Court found that consolidation would promote efficiency, convenience, and judicial economy. Additionally, no party suggested that it would be prejudiced by consolidation. The Court therefore granted the defendant's motion to Consolidate. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1C7hNP from PacerMonitor.com EVERLAKE LIFE INSURANCE: Cardona Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Gloria E. Cardona, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. EVERLAKE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2504826 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Oct. 28, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-02860. The Complaint alleges three causes of action under California law: breach of contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and violation of California's Unfair Competition Act, Business & Professions Code section.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Laura Leigh Geist, Esq. Ann N. Hopkins, Esq. Kimberly S. Mejia-Cuellar (SBN 344602) WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 858-7400 Email: lgeist@willkie.com ahopkins@willkie.com kmejiacuellar@willkie.com FISERV INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP informs stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Fiserv, Inc. (NYSE:FI) securities between July 23, 2025 and October 29, 2025. Fiserv is a Milwaukee, Wisconsin-based global payments and financial technology provider. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Fiserv, Inc. (FI) Mislead Investors Regarding its 2025 Financial Growth According to the complaint, in July 2025, Fiserv revised its 2025 guidance, including lowering its organic revenue growth guidance based on a review, termed a "re-underwrit[ing]," of the Company's new initiatives and products. The Company told investors that although certain of those initiatives and projects were delayed, they were fundamentally sound. However, the complaint alleges that Fiserv's representations to the market in July 2025 were false and misleading. On October 29, 2025, Fiserv announced disappointing third quarter 2025 financial results and admitted that the Company's 2025 guidance disclosed in July 2025 was based on "assumptions . . . which would have been objectively difficult to achieve even with the right investment and strong execution." In addition, Fiserv disclosed that it had during the third quarter conducted a full review of its new initiatives and products -- conceding that the prior "re-underwrit[ing]" was incomplete -- and "made the decision to deprioritize the short-term revenue and expense initiatives." On this news, the price of Fiserv's common stock plummeted $55.57 per share, or 44%, from a closing price of $126.17 per share on October 28, 2025 to a closing price of $70.60 on October 29, 2025. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Fiserv, Inc. Shareholders who wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must submit their papers to the court by January 5, 2026. The lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click https://robbinsllp.com/fiserv-inc-2/ All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. [GN] FLORIDA: Barde Sues Over Improper Refusal of Cataract Surgery ------------------------------------------------------------- RANDALL BARDE and CARLA VARNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RICKY D. DIXON, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Florida Department Corrections; and CENTURION OF FLORIDA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00463-AW-MAF (N.D. Fla., Oct. 31, 2025) is an action against the Defendants for refusing to provide timely medical care to the Plaintiffs and hundreds of other incarcerated people, causing them to go blind from cataracts rather than providing necessary surgeries. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendants have a policy, practice, and custom of letting cataracts mature to the point of blindness before even considering surgery and then delaying consultations and surgeries for months or years on end. This has resulted in hundreds of people living with preventable blindness for years. Such policy, practice, and custom places incarcerated people at serious risk for permanent vision loss, falls, fractures, abuse, and even death, all of which violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, says the suit. Florida Department Corrections is the government agency responsible for operating state prisons in the US state of Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dante P. Trevisani, Esq. Erica Downs, Esq. FLORIDA JUSTICE INSTITUTE, INC. 40 NW 3rd Street, Suite 200 Miami, FL 33128 Telephone: (305) 358-2081 Facsimile: (305) 358-0910 E-mail: dtrevisani@fji.law edowns@fji.law - and - Kristin McGough, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 1901 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 282-5000 Email: kmcgough@winston.com - and - Gabriela Plasencia, Esq. Camila T. Machado, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2400 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 910-0500 Email: cmachado@winston.com FOUR POINTS: Mosby Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Autumn Mosby, and other similarly situated persons v. FOUR POINTS RV RESORTS OF IL, LLC, d/b/a JELLYSTONE PARK PINE LAKES, Case No. 3:25-cv-03335-SEM-DJQ (C.D. Ill., Oct. 28, 2025), is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") for Defendant's failure to pay minimum wage and overtime wages for all hours worked to Plaintiff. The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, including but not limited to the pay periods, from July 12, 2025, until on or about August 8, 2025. The Plaintiff alleges that Salmon, as her supervisor, stole approximately 80 hours from her paychecks by failing to accurately record her work hours, resulting in a total loss of about $1,500.00 in wages. On August 8, 2025, Plaintiff confronted Salmon about the missing hours and pay. Salmon responded by claiming it was Plaintiff's fault for not keeping track of her hours, despite Plaintiff's diligent record keeping and prior complaints regarding missing pay. The Defendant has engaged in similar practices of underpaying and stealing wages from other employees in addition to Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has suffered financial hardship as a result of Defendant's unlawful conduct, including emotional distress and mental anguish., says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a bartender (a non-exempt employee) from July 12, 2025, until she was wrongfully terminated on August 8, 2025. The Defendant was a limited liability company doing business and operating in Pike County, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad W. Eisenback, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (331) 307-7632 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: ceisenback@sulaimanlaw.com FRIEND OF A FARMER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bazan Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ ANTONIO BAZAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRIEND OF A FARMER CORP. (D/B/A FRIEND OF A FARMER); CARRIE MORABITO; TAYLOR MORABITO; WESTON MORABITO; and ROSE MORABITO, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08947 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Bazan was employed by the Defendants as a bus boy. Friend of a Farmer Corp. owns, operates, and controls an American bistro/restaurant, located at New York, NY, under the name "Friend of a Farmer". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 GEICO: Court Denies Reconsideration Bids in "See" ------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Everett See, Salvatore Cristiano, Edwin Nahm and Samantha Milner-Koonce on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Government Employees Insurance Company d/b/a GEICO, GEICO General Insurance Company and GEICO Indemnity Company, Defendants, Civil Action No. 21-cv-00547 (PKC) (JMW) (E.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied both the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and the Defendants' Cross Motion for Reconsideration. The Plaintiffs bring claims against the Defendants for breach of contract and New York General Business Law Section 349. The Court granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel and denied the Defendants' Motion to Stay. The parties then sought reconsideration on the rulings issued. This is a putative class action lawsuit. The Plaintiffs filed the case on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. As per the current Scheduling Order, the deadline to complete fact discovery related to class certification is December 19, 2025, and the deadline for the Plaintiffs to move for class certification is June 19, 2026. Legal Framework The Court explained that motions for reconsideration may be filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60(b), as well as Rule 6.3 of the Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. Under Local Rule 6.3, a party has fourteen days following the entry of a court order to serve a notice of motion with an accompanying memorandum that sets forth succinctly the issues, facts, or laws that were overlooked. The Court noted that a motion for reconsideration is appropriate when the moving party can demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying motion and which, had they been considered, might have reasonably altered the result before the court. Notably, a party may not advance new facts, issues, or arguments not previously presented to the Court on a motion for reconsideration. A reconsideration motion is not appropriate to simply secure a do-over. The Court stated that reconsideration is warranted only when: (i) the moving party points to an intervening change in controlling law, (ii) newly available evidence is identified, (iii) clear error is established, or (iv) reconsideration is necessary to avoid a manifest injustice. Reconsideration must be narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid duplicative rulings on previously considered issues. Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration The Plaintiffs sought reconsideration on two portions of the Court's Order, namely, (1) requiring the Plaintiffs to provide an updated Class Period to the Defendants, and (2) denial of the Plaintiffs' request for targeted discovery from the Marcelletti litigation. On the first issue, the Plaintiffs asserted that reconsideration is warranted because the defined Class Period correctly includes a start date of January 5, 2015, which is six years prior to the filing date of the Plaintiffs' Original Complaint. On the second matter, the Plaintiffs asserted that reconsideration is warranted because the targeted Marcelletti materials the Plaintiffs seek, acknowledged by the Court to be narrowly tailored, involve the same issues, bear directly on disputed issues, and will streamline discovery. The Court found that the Plaintiffs did not point to what the Court may have overlooked. The arguments made for reconsideration in sum are that (i) the Class Period relates back to the original complaint, and (ii) that the cloned discovery requested should have been granted. The Court noted that what is absent are any changed circumstances, new facts, or law or facts that the Court overlooked. The Court observed that the Plaintiffs did not present any arguments in opposition to the Defendants' argument that the Class Period was overbroad given that the Plaintiffs were on notice of this objection since the Defendants' responses were provided and upon the filing of the Defendants' opposition to the compel motion. The Plaintiffs raised this issue for the first time in their reconsideration motion. The Court declined reconsideration as to the Plaintiffs' first matter, finding that the Plaintiffs waived their objections. Second, the Court found it was not provided with an adequate reason to reconsider its decision of declining to grant clone discovery from the Marcelletti action. The Plaintiffs are essentially asking the Court to change its mind because they are not happy with the outcome. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' application for reconsideration is denied given the lack of new evidence, or any facts overlooked or law misapplied. The Defendants sought reconsideration on one portion of the Court's Order, specifically the portion that compelled the Defendants to produce information responsive to the entirety of the Plaintiffs' Request for Production Number 2. The Defendants asserted that the Order overlooked the specific objections, argument, and legal authorities the Defendants raised regarding the personally-identifiable information requested in subparts a), c), and g) of Request 2. The Plaintiffs' Request for Production Number Two seeks documents and databases sufficient to identify all members of the putative Sales Tax Classes and the tax rate applicable at the time of loss to the jurisdiction of each member's loss vehicle's principal place of garage and the Tax Refund Amount, if any, paid on their claim, including claimant's name, claimant's address (street, city, state, and zip code), and vehicle identification number (VIN) of loss vehicle. The Court found that it previously determined this request was relevant to the claims at hand, namely the Defendants' practices in connection with adjusting total loss claims. While the Court did not outright discuss the Defendants' specific argument as to the personally identifiable information, which is premised too on relevancy, the Court did issue a ruling on whether the documents sought are relevant. The Court found that the Defendants' argument that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to this information at the current stage is of no merit, where the Plaintiffs seek to move for class certification in the near future. The Court noted that later cases state that discovery related to a class action is appropriate even before the class has been certified. Moreover, the Defendants fail to acknowledge that the parties entered into Protective Orders, which the Court granted regarding disclosure of privileged or confidential information and is directly on point to the issue of personally identifiable information. Therefore, the Court did not overlook the Defendants' arguments and denied the reconsideration. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gDf4iP from PacerMonitor.com GENERAL MOTORS: Kriseman Sues Over Defective Vehicle ---------------------------------------------------- Rick Kriseman and Kerry Kriseman, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-02937 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 28, 2025), is brought concerning the Defendant's sale of defective Ultium PowerUP electric vehicle chargers which are unable to perform their marketed and intended function of properly, consistently, and safely charging electric vehicles in violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). These defects render the chargers unfit for their ordinary purpose and substantially impair their value to reasonable consumers such as Plaintiffs. The Class Chargers have two defects. First, when users plug Class Chargers into their cars, their internal breakers often get tripped, causing the chargers to fail and the car to remain uncharged. Second, when the chargers do work, and users plug them in for overnight charge, the Chargers' plugs get so hot that they often set off car alarms. These two recurring defects prevent normal charging and create foreseeable risk of overheating during intended use. GM directly or from GM-authorized, Florida dealerships. Plaintiffs and Class Members all paid market price for electric vehicle chargers that would function as reasonable consumers would expect an electric vehicle charger to function—i.e., to charge the vehicle properly and without tripping an internal breaker and not overheat while doing so. Instead, however, Plaintiffs and the Class members received chargers that failed to function properly and would instead trip, fail to charge, and overheat. In other words, Plaintiff and the Class Members received defective chargers, and, as such, Plaintiff and the Class Members did not receive goods commensurate, in value, with the money they paid. This caused them to suffer harm in the form of lost money spent on the defective chargers, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased, in Florida, their Class Chargers from GM directly or from GM-authorized, Florida dealerships. General Motors LLC is a Delaware limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Ourand, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 158 N. Harbor City Blvd. Melbourne, FL 32935 Phone: (321)241-0255 Email: will.ourand@forthepeople.com - and - Michael F. Ram, Esq. Colin Losey, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 1390 Market St, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415) 846-3862 Email: colin.losey@forthepeople.com mram@forthepeople.com GODADDY OPERATING: Collect Data Without Consent, Hughes Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- DANA HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GODADDY OPERATING COMPANY, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-10488 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2025) alleges violation of the California Trap and Trace Law. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants use data broker software on its website, https://www.godaddy.com, to secretly collect data about a Website visitor's computer, location, and browsing habits. The data broker software then compiles this data and correlates that data with extensive external records it already has about most Californians in order to learn the identity of the Website user. The Defendant's installation and use of data broker software without obtaining consent is a violation of the California Trap and Trace Law, the suit alleges. Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC operates as website hosting provider. The Company offers domain search, auctions, managed hosting, site protection, website security, and other domain registration services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: (213) 927-9270 Email: rtauler@taulersmith.com eshapiro@taulersmith.com GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE: Newkirk Sues Over Data Security Incident ------------------------------------------------------------- John Newkirk, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-01217-O (N.D. Tex., Oct. 28, 2025), is brought arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant (the "Data Breach"), which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information ("PII" or the "Private Information") of Plaintiff and other current and former employees and customers of Defendant, the putative class members ("Class"). The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on Defendant's computer network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the Private Information from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition. The Defendant, through its employees, disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by, among other things, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions. Defendant also failed to disclose that it did not have adequately robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and failed to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct since the Private Information that Defendant collected and maintained is now in the hands of data thieves, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided Defendant with his sensitive PII as a condition of applying for employment with Defendant. Goosehead operates through both corporate and franchise locations across the United States, partnering with multiple insurance carriers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. Christopher E. Torres, Esq. 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (888) 350-3931 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com jellzey@eksm.com ctorres@eksm.xom Service only: service@eksm.com HOME DEPOT: ADA Suit Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set Jan. 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top class Actions reports that Home Depot agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims its payment terminals are not accessible to blind and visually impaired customers. The Home Depot settlement benefits blind or visually impaired individuals who have been denied the full and equal enjoyment of Home Depot's payment terminals' cash-back feature. According to the class action lawsuit, Home Depot's point-of-sale terminals do not provide audio output to indicate there is a cash-back feature and related options. The plaintiff in the case says this lack of audio output violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Home Depot, a home improvement store that sells tools, appliances, construction products and services, has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the ADA class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, Home Depot will update or replace the software associated with at least one payment terminal in each store to provide audio readouts of on-screen prompts. The company will also provide training to store managers on this updated software. The company will also pay $65,000 in attorney fees and costs, including a $1,000 incentive award for the plaintiff. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Jan. 2, 2026. The final approval hearing for the Home Depot settlement is scheduled for Jan. 14, 2026. No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class members who wish to update their contact information can do so on the settlement website. Who's Eligible Blind or visually impaired individuals or other individuals in the United States with disabilities as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act who use or require the use of audio readouts of on-screen prompts and tactile keypads associated with use of payment terminals (or comparable technologies that allow the individuals to interact with payment terminals), and who have or allege they have been, or in the future will be, denied the full and equal enjoyment of Home Depot payment terminals' cash back feature at stores owned or operated by Home Depot in the United States because, such persons encounter(d) a payment terminal without an audio readout and tactile keypad to obtain cash back at Home Depot stores. Potential Award Non-monetary relief Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form Deadline 01/02/2026 Case Name Dalton v. Home Depot USA Inc., Case No. 23-cv-02126, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota Final Hearing 01/14/2026 Settlement Website HomeDepotADAPOSSettlement.com Claims Administrator Throndset Michenfelder LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (763) 515-6110 Class Counsel Patrick W. Michenfelder THRONDSET MICHENFELDER LLC Defense Counsel N/A [GN] INGRAM MICRO: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Brown Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- DAMON BROWN; BILL CHISM; JANE DOE; EDWARD NDIBA; and CHARLES RODDEN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INGRAM MICRO AMERICAS INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-25-016619 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Oct. 29, 2025) is a class action arising from the Defendant's failure to protect its current and former employees' and clients' highly sensitive data. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendant knew or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of PII misuse. In failing to adequately protect its current and former employees' and clients' information, adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendant violated state law and harmed an unknown number of its current and former employees and clients. The Plaintiffs and the Class are victims of Defendant's negligence and inadequate cybersecurity measures. Specifically, Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Class trusted Defendant with their PII. But Defendant betrayed that trust when Defendant failed to properly use up-to-date security practices to prevent the Data Breach, says the suit. Ingram Micro Americas Inc. distributes information technology products. The Company focuses on cloud, mobility, technology lifecycle, supply chain, and technology solutions. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com cardoso@kolawyers.com JAGUAR LAND: Agrees to Settle Turbocharger Defect Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org Jaguar Land Rover has agreed to a class action settlement to resolve a lawsuit that alleged certain vehicle models are plagued by a turbocharger defect that could cause premature failure and engine damage. The Jaguar Land Rover class action settlement received final approval from the court on September 30, 2025 and covers all current and former owners or lessees in the United States of the following vehicle models (the class vehicles) sold or leased and registered in the U.S. on or before September 27, 2024, and equipped with a brazed scroll turbocharger: -- Model year 2013-2016 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque; -- Model year 2015-2017 Land Rover Discovery Sport; and -- Model year 2013-2015 Land Rover LR2. The court-approved class action settlement website can be found at https://TurbochargerSettlement.com/. Drivers who believe they may be a class member in the Jaguar Land Rover turbocharger settlement can confirm their eligibility by searching for their car's vehicle identification number (VIN) on this page. According to settlement documents, Jaguar Land Rover has agreed to offer monetary reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses incurred from turbocharger and/or engine repairs, along with a coverage extension for the automaker's New Vehicle Limited Warranty. Land Rover settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form have specific options for reimbursement, contingent on their vehicle and its age, mileage, and type of repairs required. Per the settlement website, eligible drivers can receive a maximum of $3,750 via check for documented, out-of-pocket costs for repairing or replacing a turbocharger, up to the following amounts: -- Up to 100 percent reimbursement to class vehicles that are less than eight years/96 months old (but older than four years/48 months) with 50,000 to 80,000 miles at the time of service; -- Up to 60 percent reimbursement for class vehicles that are nine years/108 months old with 80,000 to 90,000 miles at the time of service; and -- Up to 50 percent reimbursement for class vehicles that are a maximum of 10 years/120 months old with 90,000 to 100,000 miles at the time of service. Further, drivers can receive a maximum of $12,000 via check for documented, out-of-pocket costs for repairing or replacing an engine that was damaged by turbocharger failure, up to the following amounts: -- Up to 100 percent reimbursement for class vehicles that are less than eight years/96 months old (but older than four years/48 months) with 50,000 to 80,000 miles at the time of service; and -- Up to 30 percent reimbursement for class vehicles that are over eight years old and a maximum of 10 years/120 months old at the time of service. With respect to future repairs or replacements, Land Rover warranty extensions for turbochargers and engine repairs will follow a similar reimbursement pattern, the settlement website relays. Coverage will be fully extended to vehicles within the four- to eight-year window with 50,000 to 80,000 miles, and partially extended to vehicles up to 10 years old with no more than 100,000 miles for repairs and replacements conducted by an authorized Land Rover dealer. All terms, requirements and limitations other than extended time and mileage for turbocharger issues in the New Vehicle Limited Warranty will remain in effect. "No reimbursement will be available if the Service Records or other documents clearly establish that the qualifying repair or replacement was required because of a collision, accident, vandalism, or substantial failure to adhere to the applicable maintenance schedule or customer abuse," the settlement agreement details. To submit a Land Rover 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 of the claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the address listed at the bottom of the form. Land Rover settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by December 30, 2025. Required documents to submit with a claim form must include the following information: -- That the class member was the individual who owned or leased an afflicted vehicle when the repair costs were incurred; -- That the turbocharger failed, and at what time period; -- The total cost of any repairs or replacements (including those associated with the vehicle's engine); and -- The date of the transaction for the repair. The Jaguar Land Rover class action lawsuit alleged that the manufacturer knowingly concealed in certain models a turbocharger defect that could cause premature failure and significant damage to other engine components. [GN] LEGACY HEALTH: Ramsey-Wright Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Stepheon Ramsey-Wright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEGACY HEALTH, an Oregon corporation; LEGACY SALMON CREEK HOSPITAL, a Washington corporation, Case No. 25-2-03483-06 was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for Clark County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Oct. 28, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05965. The Plaintiff alleges the following violations on a class-wide basis in eight causes of action against Legacy: failure to provide rest breaks in violation of RCW 49.12.020 and WAC 296-126-092, failure to provide meal periods in violation of RCW 49.12.020 and WAC 296- 126-092, failure to pay overtime wages in violation of RCW 49.46.130, payment of wages less than entitled in violation of RCW 49.46.090, failure to accrue and allow use of paid sick leave in violation of RCW 49.46.210 and WAC 296-128-620, unlawful deductions and rebates in violation of RCW 49.52.060 and WAC 296-126 028, failure to pay all wages due at termination in violation of RCW 49.48.010, and willful refusal to pay wages in violation of RCW 49.52.050.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Laura Leigh Geist, Esq. Ann N. Hopkins, Esq. Kimberly S. Mejia-Cuellar (SBN 344602) WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 858-7400 Email: lgeist@willkie.com ahopkins@willkie.com kmejiacuellar@willkie.com LOWE'S HOME CENTERS: Lovell Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lowe's Home Centers, LLC. The case is styled as Prescila Lovell, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Case No. 25CV025460 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 27, 2025). The case type is stated "Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death Tort." Lowe's Home Centers Inc. -- https://www.lowes.com/ -- retails home improvement, building materials, and home appliances.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. M & C PROVISIONS: Maria Sues to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Bryan Maria, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. M & C PROVISIONS INC. and MICHAEL O'ROURKE, as an individual, Case No. 1:25-cv-08919 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2025), is brought against the Defendants to recover minimum wage and 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. Although Plaintiff JOSE BRYAN MARIA worked 50 to 60 hours per week from in or around August 2021 until in or around June 2025, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with a wage notice at the time of his hire or at any time during his employment in violation of the NYLL. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with an accurate wage statement that included all hours worked and all wages received each week when Plaintiff was paid in violation of the NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a helper, loader, unloader and organizer of meat and deli products, while performing other related miscellaneous duties or the Defendants. M & C PROVISIONS INC., is a New York domestic business corporation 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 MACKENZIE FINANCIAL: Ontario Court Certifies Data Breach Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- James Langton of Investment Executive reports that an Ontario court has certified a class action lawsuit against fund manager Mackenzie Financial Corp. and compliance communications firm Investorcom Holdings ULC over a cyberattack that potentially exposed the personal data of over 1 million investors to criminals on the "dark web." The Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved a motion to certify the case as a national class action, ruling that a class action is the preferable proceeding for this sort of case. It did not evaluate the actual merit of the allegations beyond establishing that the plaintiffs have, at least, a plausible case. According to the court's ruling, in 2023, hackers allegedly accessed personal information on Mackenzie clients through a vulnerability in Investorcom's systems, and attempted to extract a ransom from the firm for the exposed data. The court noted that, while there's no doubt that investors' data was accessed, it's not clear whether the hackers actually managed to extract any of the data. In addition, there's no evidence at this point that any of the data has been sold on the dark web. Given that Mackenzie has provided its clients with free credit monitoring, the court said that the judge hearing the case may conclude that investors haven't suffered any harm as a result of the breach -- yet, the plaintiffs argue that the fact that they now have to guard themselves against identity theft reflects a breach of a duty of care, which merits some compensation to affected investors. "The plaintiffs' expert provides examples where exfiltrated [personal information] from a data breach event is misused many years after the event. The plaintiffs argue that this risk, resulting anxiety and the ongoing need to take precautions against identity theft and other misuse of the [personal information] demands compensation," it said. "The critical question then is whether the defendants owed a duty to foresee and prevent a hacker attack and whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages or other remedies in the absence of specific proof of misuse of the [personal information]," the court said. Among other things, the plaintiffs argue that the firms were negligent in protecting investors' data, that they breached their duty of care to keep that data safe, and that investors were harmed as a result. "The issue at the core of the litigation is whether the duty of the defendants extends to protecting clients of Mackenzie from the risk of pure economic loss, or from the risk of future potential losses, if cybercriminals gain access to [personal data] and might misuse that data in the future," the court said. The court found that it's arguable that the defendants owed duty of care to investors that was breached in this case, and that it's possible that the plaintiffs may be able to argue that the firms had a fiduciary duty to investors that was breached too. "Even if there is no applicable or enforceable statutory obligation in a particular jurisdiction, the almost constant attention to this issue by legislatures across Canada and around the world for that matter, supports an argument that data custodians should now be alert to the highly sensitive nature of [personal data] and have a duty to protect it," it said. Beyond concluding that there's potentially a viable claim, the court also found that the other elements required for a class action are also present in this case -- there are common issues to be determined, there's an identifiable group of affected investors, the proposed plaintiff is suitable and has a reasonable litigation plan, it found. B.C. court case The court was also asked to address an additional issue -- whether to carve out investors in certain provinces from the Ontario class action, given that there's a parallel suit that is being brought in British Columbia, where the legislative environment may be more conducive to this sort of claim. Acting as an intervenor, the plaintiff in the B.C. case asked the court to carve out B.C. residents from the class covered by the Ontario suit, arguing that it would be more appropriate for these investors to be included in that action, although it has yet to be certified. However, the Ontario court denied that request, saying that it is premature to provide a carve out for these investors before the courts there have decided whether to certify that case as a class action, or not -- however, that may change as the cases proceed. "Where there are competing class proceedings in different jurisdictions and more than one is certified, class definitions may have to be adjusted as events unfold," the Ontario court said, noting that the certification motion for the case in B.C. is now expected to be heard in December. "Once the court in British Columbia has ruled, it may be appropriate to revisit the question of whether or not the classes in this proceeding should be adjusted or limited," it said. [GN] MAISON SOLUTIONS: Grabar Law Investigates Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Grabar Law Office is investigating claims on behalf of shareholders of Maison Solutions Inc. (NASDAQ: MSS) as an underlying securities fraud class action has survived a motion to dismiss the complaint and is now stayed pending attempts to settle the case. The investigation concerns whether certain officers and directors breached the fiduciary duties they owed to the company. If you are a current Maison Solutions Inc. (NASDAQ: MSS) shareholder who purchased Maison shares on or shortly after its October 5, 2023 IPO and still hold shares today, you may be able to seek corporate reforms, the return of money back to the company, and a court approved incentive award at no cost to you whatsoever. Visit https://grabarlaw.com/the-latest/maison-shareholder-investigation/, contact Joshua Grabar at jgrabar@grabarlaw.com or call us at 267-507-6085 WHY?: Key allegations in an underlying securities fraud class action complaint against Maison Solutions Inc. (NASDAQ: MSS) have survived a motion to dismiss and the case is stayed pending settlement of the matter. The complaint alleges that in the Registration Statement and throughout the Class Period (October 5, 2023 through December 15, 2023), Maison, through certain of its officers, made materially false and/or misleading statements, including failing to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's vendor XHJC Holdings Inc., is a related party; (2) that the Company's CEO and related entities were alleged to have used supermarkets as a front to defraud the EB-5 visa program; and (3) 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. On March 31, 2025, material portions of the underlying complaint survived a motion to dismiss. On October 28, 2025, the court Ordered a stay in the class action litigation pending the parties attempts to reach settlement. WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW: If you purchased Maison Solutions Inc. (NASDAQ: MSS) on or shortly after its October 5, 2023 IPO and still hold shares today, you are encouraged visit https://grabarlaw.com/the-latest/maison-shareholder-investigation/, contact Joshua Grabar at jgrabar@grabarlaw.com, or call 267-507-6085. You can seek corporate reforms, the return of funds back to the company, and a court approved incentive award at no cost to you whatsoever. #Maison $MSS Attorney Advertising Disclaimer Contact: Joshua H. Grabar, Esq. Grabar Law Office One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (267) 507-6085 Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com [GN] MERUS NV: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to GEnmad A/S ------------------------------------------------------ Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Merus N.V. (NASDAQ: MRUS) related to its sale to GEnmad A/S. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Merus stockholders will receive $97.00 in cash per share. ACT NOW. The Tender Offer expires on December 11, 2025. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/merus-n-v/ https://monteverdelaw.com/case/verint-systems-inc/ https://monteverdelaw.com/case/wk-kellogg-co/ https://monteverdelaw.com/case/dnow-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Heidrick & Struggles International, Inc. (NASDAQ: HSII) related to its sale to a consortium of investors led by Advent International and Corvex Private Equity. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Heidrick shareholders will receive $59.00 per share in cash. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for December 5, 2025 Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/hni-corporation/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- PROS Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: PRO) related to its sale to Thoma Bravo. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, PROS shareholders will receive $23.25 in cash per share. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for December 4, 2025. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/pros-holdings-inc/ https://monteverdelaw.com/case/waters-corporation/ https://monteverdelaw.com/case/guaranty-bancshares-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- PB Bankshares Inc. (NASDAQ: PBBK) related to its sale to Norwood Financial Corp. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, PB Bankshares' shareholders will have the option to elect to receive either 0.7850 shares of Norwood common stock or $19.75 in cash for each common share of PB Bankshares they own. The election is subject to proration to ensure that, in the aggregate, 80% of the transaction consideration will be paid in the form of Norwood common stock. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for December 10, 2025. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/pb-bankshares-inc/ https://monteverdelaw.com/case/sketchers-u-s-a-inc/ https://monteverdelaw.com/case/aimei-health-technology-co-ltd/ https://monteverdelaw.com/case/gms-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. 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 company, director or officer 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] MIDDLESEX WATER: To Pay NJ Residents $4.9MM PFAS Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Hurdle, writing for NJ Spotlight News, reports that Some 60,000 residential water customers in New Jersey will share $4.9 million in the settlement of a lawsuit that charged a water company and a chemical maker with violating a state health limit on the presence of PFOA, a toxic "forever chemical," in drinking water. Middlesex Water Co. and 3M agreed to settle the class action almost four years after it was filed in New Jersey state court, citing the length of the litigation and the prospect of further costs to both sides should it go to trial. The settlement, announced on Oct. 3, is not a personal injury case but is designed to compensate individual claimants for the cost of buying bottled water, installing filtration or seeing doctors after Middlesex Water Co. told some of its customers in October 2021 that their drinking water exceeded the state's "maximum contaminant limit" for the chemical. Stephen DeNittis, lead attorney for the class, said the settlement was the largest of its kind in New Jersey, and may be the only case nationwide to win compensation for individuals who incurred out-of-pocket expenses in seeking to avoid drinking water contaminated with a PFAS chemical. "This settlement represents a great recovery for Middlesex Water customers who otherwise would have been forced to bear the expense of paying for consultations with doctors, bottled water, water filters, or similar costs incurred as a result of water quality violations," DeNittis said in a statement. Mark Cuker, a Pennsylvania attorney who has represented classes of plaintiffs against PFAS manufacturers, said he was unaware of any other class-action suit over PFAS against a water company, and predicted that it could become a template for other communities whose water has been contaminated with the chemicals. "It's very interesting because there have been many, many public water supplies that have been contaminated with PFAS," said Cuker, who is not connected to the Middlesex class action. Class members will be awarded up to $2,500 each but some will get much less, depending on their own expenditures to avoid drinking, cooking with or bathing in the contaminated water. The chemicals have been used for their heat-resistant properties in a variety of consumer products including non-stick cookware, carpets and curtains since the 1940s. They have washed into aquifers and contaminated drinking water from which they are now increasingly removed by utilities using carbon filtration. But there is no treatment for removing PFAS chemicals from the human body or the environment, hence their nickname "forever chemicals." In 2020, New Jersey finalized its limit on the presence of PFOA in drinking water at 14 parts per trillion, at the time one of the strictest limits in the United States. The regulation reflected gathering evidence that PFOA and other "forever chemicals" in the PFAS family were linked to an array of serious illnesses including some cancers, ulcerative colitis, elevated cholesterol, resistance to vaccines and developmental problems in young children. New Jersey's standards for PFOA and two other kinds of PFAS chemicals were later superseded by even stricter limits from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency when it set the first national PFAS rules during the administration of former President Joe Biden. But those standards have now been rolled back by the second Trump administration which rescinded the Biden limits on four kinds of the chemicals and extended the compliance deadline for water companies on PFOA and PFOS, two of the most widespread kinds of PFAS chemicals, by two years until 2031. A Middlesex spokesman did not respond to several requests for comment on the settlement. But In 2022, the company attacked the class-action suit, saying that it was not responsible for the PFOA contamination which it said was actually caused by the chemical's manufacturer, 3M. Middlesex separately sued 3M but settled that suit as part of the new agreement. 3M did not respond to a request for comment. In the summer of 2021, PFOA in Middlesex's drinking water system serving six New Jersey towns was found as high as 36.1 parts per trillion, well above the official 14 ppt level, and ensuring that an annual average would exceed the state limit, according to a notice sent by the utility to affected customers that year. "People who drink water containing PFOA in excess of the [Maximum contaminant Level] over time could experience problems with their blood serum cholesterol levels, liver, kidney, immune system, or, in males, the reproductive system," the New Jersey Department of Health said in an advisory that was also used by some other utilities. "Drinking water containing PFOA in excess of the MCL over time may also increase the risk of testicular and kidney cancer." "People who drink water containing PFOA in excess of the [Maximum contaminant Level] over time could experience problems with their blood serum cholesterol levels, liver, kidney, immune system, or, in males, the reproductive system," the notice said. "Drinking water containing PFOA in excess of the MCL over time may also increase the risk of testicular and kidney cancer." For women, the notice warned that exposure to PFOA over time may result in developmental delays in a fetus or an infant, and some delays may persist in older children. The company's then-CEO, Dennis Doll, acknowledged that PFOA was above the regulatory limit, but he denied that represented a public health emergency, and predicted that the PFOA level would remain at about 20 ppt until a new treatment plant opened in 2023. But shortly afterward, the company obtained drinking water from a new source that complied with the regulation. Barbara Catterall, a resident of Edison, N.J., is one of the class but is expecting to receive only $50 in compensation for her purchase of bottled water after receiving the notice saying her drinking water did not comply with the PFOA rule. Catterall, 80, said $50 may be about equal to the amount she spent on bottled water but stopped buying it before the company restored drinking water that complied with the state standard. Caterall said she had not experienced any health problems from drinking contaminated water but feels trapped by Middlesex because it remains the only source of public water to her townhouse complex. "You are like a captive. This is the water company you have," she said. "They've got you over a barrel. The only alternative is that you'd just have to keep buying bottled water." [GN] MODERNIZING MEDICINE: Fails to Safeguard Private Info, Fram Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LAURA FRAM, 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-81321-XXXX (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. 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. 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). The Plaintiff 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. She 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 was a patient of Curalta, a podiatry facility located in Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 ashamis@shamisgentile.com MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismisses Deceptive Ad Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Hunter Bjazevich & Megan Rodgers of Covington report that in a recent decision, the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a deceptive advertising class action filed against Mondelez International, Inc. ("Mondelez"). Salguero v. Mondelez Int'l, Inc., 2025 WL 3004534 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2025). Mondelez, a snack food company, manufactured and distributed energy snack bars ("Zbars") while labeling the packaging as "climate neutral certified." The plaintiff, allegedly purchasing Zbars under the impression that the label meant Zbars did not cause pollution, initiated a class action suit, bringing claims under California's consumer protection statute, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. The court dismissed the action with prejudice, finding that Mondelez's label was factually true and not misleading. The climate neutral certification was granted by a third-party organization, the Change Climate Project, which helps companies "measure, manage, and reduce the footprint of their products." Companies that comply with the Change Climate Project's standards achieve the climate neutral certification. The complaint only alleged that the label was deceptive because the Zbars were not climate neutral, but did not actually allege that it was false or misleading to label the Zbars as climate neutral certified, which the court said was a "distinction with a difference." Further, the complaint did not allege that Mondelez violated or otherwise did not meet the Change Climate Project's standards or that the certification given to participating companies is inaccurate. The plaintiff argued that the FTC's Green Guides are codified as law in California (see Whiteside v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 108 F.4th 771, 784 (9th Cir. 2024) (referencing Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17580.5)), and therefore third-party certifications do not eliminate a marketer's obligation to substantiate all claims communicated by a certification. The court was still not convinced that the Zbar labels fell below this standard, ultimately stating that while reasonable consumers are not expected to conduct independent research to substantiate claims made on product labels, they are not permitted "to defy common sense and everyday experiences." The court recognized that while true statements can sometimes be misleading if "couched in such a manner that is likely to mislead or deceive the consumer," the plaintiff did not allege facts sufficient to render the true label misleading. Because all of the claims asserted by the plaintiff were premised on the same flawed deceptive advertising theory, the court dismissed all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). This case stands as an important example of a court refusing to entertain a deceptive advertising class action where the challenged labels are factually true and would not deceive reasonable consumers. [GN] MOUNTAIN HARDWEAR: Henry Files Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Mountain Hardwear, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13004 (N.D. Il., October 24, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website -- https://www.mountainhardwear.com -- to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of outdoor clothing on Mountainhardwear.com. Despite her efforts, however, Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges she was denied the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services of Mountainhardwear.com as a result of accessibility barriers. She was disoriented when the automatic pop-up window appeared on the web page. She was not informed about the variety of categories displayed, preventing her from purchasing any items on Mountainhardwear.com. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Mountain Hardwear's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Mountain Hardwear, Inc. operates the website Mountainhardwear.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Office: 844-731-3343 Direct: 716-281-5496 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law NAKED NUTRITION: Faces Class Suit Over Mass Gainer Protein Powder ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that Naked Nutrition's Mass Vegan Mass Gainer protein powder contains dangerous, undisclosed levels of lead and other heavy metals. The 39-page false advertising lawsuit says that just one serving of the Naked protein powder contains 7.7 micrograms of lead, about 1,570 percent higher than California's maximum daily limit recommended for consumption. The suit emphasizes that many major health agencies, including the World Health Organization, hold that, due to the health risks associated with heavy metals, there exists no safe level of exposure to lead. The class action lawsuit charges that defendant Naked Whey, Inc. has intentionally misrepresented its Mass Vegan Mass Gainer protein powder by touting the supplement as a premium product "with nothing to hide," and by including no label disclosure about the presence of heavy metals. "Despite the known health risks, [Naked Nutrition] knowingly, recklessly, negligently, and/or intentionally chose to misrepresent the true quality and nutritiousness of the Products when, in fact, the Products contained or risked containing Heavy Metals," the suit alleges. Per the complaint, the lead measurements were ascertained in October 2025 during an investigation conducted by Consumer Reports (CR) on the level of heavy metals in popular protein powders. The Naked Nutrition Vegan Mass Gainer powder had the highest "level of concern" for lead and was one of only two supplements that CR recommended avoiding entirely, the filing notes. According to the case, exposure to lead is "toxic to humans regardless of age or health status," as heavy metals are known neurotoxins. Several health agencies, like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have decades of research acknowledging the irreversible health risks associated with lead exposure, such as impaired cognitive development, reduced IQ, behavioral disorders, learning disabilities, pregnancy complications and long-term cardiovascular, renal, and neurological conditions, the case relays. Despite the well-documented dangers of heavy metals, Naked Nutrition has not disclosed the heightened levels of lead in its products, the lawsuit claims. Moreover, the suit contends that Naked Nutrition should have been aware of the presence of lead due to robust industry standards in product testing and the company's own emphasis on having "nothing to hide" in its ingredients list. The plaintiff is a California resident who purchased the Naked Nutrition products at issue several times between October 2024 and October 2025. Because of the alleged lead levels in the product, the plaintiff claims he ". . . was injured when he paid the purchase price or price premium" for a supplement represented as a "high-quality, nutritious, plant-based protein powder." In a statement to Healthline Magazine after the CR investigation was published, Naked Nutrition said that it takes "customers' health and product transparency extremely seriously," and assured that, "on a per-gram basis, our results [for the Mass Vegan Mass Protein powder] are consistent with other plant-based protein products." The Naked Nutrition class action lawsuit looks to cover anyone in the United States who purchased the company's Mass Vegan Mass Gainer powder for personal and/or household consumption during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN] NATURAL FOODS: Cole Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ HARON COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATURAL FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13401 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 1, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://bulkfoods.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Natural Foods Inc is a full service wholesale distributor of organic, natural and specialty foods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (718) 554-0237 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law NEWELL BRANDS: Bowman Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- TANISIA BOWMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NEWELL BRANDS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13402 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 1, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.exofficio.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Newell Brands, Inc. retails consumer products. The Company offers housewares, home furnishings, office supplies, tools and hardware, and hair accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (718) 554-0237 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law NEWREZ LLC: Castellon Sues Over Fraudulent Loan Scheme ------------------------------------------------------ MARIEL CASTELLON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEWREZ, LLC d/b/a SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING; and GULF HARBOUR INVESTMENTS CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01917 (E.D. Va., Oct. 31, 2025) alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants falsely represent to borrowers like the Plaintiff that they owe thousands in interest on their loans when the prior servicer of the loan had affirmatively represented that no interest was accruing and waived any right to collect the inflated amounts years before Defendants' fraudulent scheme. Despite these affirmative representations, the Defendants retroactively assessed interest on the Plaintiff's loan resulting in her paying close to $100,000 in retroactively assessed interest, says the suit. Newrez, LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing provides financial services. The Company offers originating and selling mortgage loans and homes on buying, lending, and rental basis. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. Casey S. Nash, Esq. J. Patrick McNichol, Esq. Matthew G. Rosendahl, 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 casey@kellyguzzo.com pat@kellyguzzo.com matt@kellyguzzo.com NORDSTROM INC: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- JULIE DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORDSTROM, INC. D/B/A NORDSTROM RACK, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-04144-MJD-DJF (D. Minn., Oct. 29, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.nordstromrack.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Nordstrom, Inc. operates as an online fashion products company. The Company offers men and women dresses, coats, jackets, jeans, jumpsuits, rompers, lingerie, matching sets, shorts, pants, leggings, skirts, sleepwear, and loungewear including shoes, handbags, and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com NUU COLLECTIVE: Davis Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NUU COLLECTIVE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13262 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 30, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://nuudiisystem.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. NUU Collective LLC crafts, sources, and distributes brands, creating impactful products with strong branding and design, specializing in six key product areas. [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 Direct: (716) 281-5496 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law PENTAGON FEDERAL: Court Certifies "Pay-to-Pay" Fees Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- A.J. Dhaliwal, Mehul Madia & Maxwell Earp-Thomas of Sheppard Mullin reports that on November 3, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia granted class certification certified a statewide class of borrowers challenging a credit union's alleged assessment of unauthorized "pay-to-pay" fees under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. The plaintiff alleged that the institution imposed a 5 dollar fee each time consumers made monthly payments by phone or other electronic means, even though neither the loan agreement nor any statute authorized the charge. Relying on records showing more than 1,400 such fees across 422 consumer loans with West Virginia addresses, the court concluded that the prerequisites for class treatment were met. The court found that the legality of the uniform "pay-to-pay" fee could be resolved with common proof, that a class action was the most efficient way to adjudicate the claims, and that potential class members could be readily identified through servicing records. The Plaintiff in the class action, JOSEPH BOCZEK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT UNION d/b/a PENFED., Defendant, alleges violations including: Unauthorized service fees. The complaint alleges that the institution collected payment processing fees that were not expressly permitted by the governing loan contracts or by statute, constituting an unfair or unconscionable debt-collection practice under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. Misrepresenting amounts owed. The plaintiff alleges that by adding processing charges to monthly payments, the institution misstated the amount of the borrower's obligation because the Promissory Note did not authorize those additional amounts. Improper collection charges. The complaint further alleges that the institution used "pay-to-pay" fees to recover its own servicing and collection costs and to generate additional profit from borrowers, rather than limiting compensation to interest and contractually permitted charges. Putting It Into Practice: The CFPB previously took the position that "pay-to-pay" and other convenience fees could constitute an unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Act. That position was later withdrawn as a part of the Bureau's May 2025 deregulatory initiative. While the rescission reduced federal supervisory pressure, it left intact the growing risk of private litigation under state consumer-protection laws. Servicers, lenders, and credit unions should review their payment-processing fee practices to ensure each charge is clearly supported by state law. [GN] PROSPER FUNDING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Butler Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- ANNETTE BUTLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROSPER FUNDING LLC; and PROSPER MARKETPLACE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-09381-LB (N.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2025) is a class action arising out of the data breach on the Defendants' network that resulted in unauthorized access to, and disclosure of, the highly sensitive data of individuals (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that as a result of the Data Breach, putative Class Members like Plaintiff Butler suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, fraudulent transactions, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, emotional distress, and the present risk of imminent harm caused by the compromise of their sensitive personal information. Defendants maintained the personally identifiable information ("PII" or "Private Information") in a negligent and reckless manner. In particular, the PII was maintained on Defendants' computer systems and networks in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks, says the suit. Prosper Funding LLC offers financial technology services. The Company offers a marketplace that enables borrower members to borrow money and its investor members to purchase borrower payment dependent notes. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive-Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com - and - Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Rd., Ste. 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES: Eddings Suit Transferred to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Chris Eddings, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Roto-Rooter Services Company, Case No. 3:25-cv-06448 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 28, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10370-MEMF-MBK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. Roto-Rooter -- https://www.rotorooter.com/ -- is a top plumbing and drain cleaning company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa Rose Brevard, Esq. David R. Markham, Esq. MARKHAM LAW FIRM 888 Prospect Street Suite 200 La Jolla, CA 92037 Phone: (619) 399-3995 Fax: (619) 615-2067 Email: lbrevard@markham-law.com dmarkham@markham-law.com - and - Walter L. Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC 8605 Santa Monica Boulevard, No. 63354 West Hollywood, CA 90069 Phone: (562) 256-1047 Fax: (562) 256-1006 Email: whaines@uelglaw.com - and - Isam C. Khoury, Esq. Maggie Realin, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY AND SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101-5305 Phone: (619) 595-3001 Fax: (619) 595-3000 Email: ikhoury@ckslaw.com mrealin@ckslaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC 4660 La Jolla Village Drive Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: (858) 652-3100 Fax: (858) 652-3101 Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com ROYAL UNITED MORTGAGE: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Royal United Mortgage LLC. The case is styled as Erin Wilson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Royal United Mortgage LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-06150-AT (N.D. Ga., Oct. 28, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Royal United Mortgage LLC -- https://royalunitedmortgage.com/ -- headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, is a privately held National Mortgage Lender that has been in business since 2008.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com SCHOLASTIC INC: Samson Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Trina Samson, on her own behalf, and on the behalf of others similarly situated v. SCHOLASTIC INC., Case No. 25-2-28762-9 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Oct. 28, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02115. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts violations of Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("CEMA"), and the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"), on behalf of herself and a putative Washington class. The Plaintiff alleges that Scholastic violated CEMA and CPA by sending Plaintiff "commercial emails whose subject lines contain false or misleading statements."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Amanda Beane, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF AMANDA BEANE, P.C. 7724 35th Ave NE, P.O. Box 15526 Seattle, WA 98125 Phone: 206-531-0224 Email: amanda@amandabeanelaw.com - and - Caren Decter, Esq. Michael Salik, Esq. FRANKFURT KURNIT KLEIN + SELZ 28 Liberty Street, 35th Fl. New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 980-0120 Email: cdecter@fkks.com msalik@fkks.com SECURIX LLC: Ocean Springs Sues Over License Plate Reader Program ----------------------------------------------------------------- WLOX reports that on Tuesday night, November 4, the City of Ocean Springs announced it has taken formal legal action against Securix, LLC, a Georgia-based for-profit company, regarding funds collected through the License Plate Reader Program. Ocean Springs contracted with Securix in 2021 with the intent of encouraging uninsured drivers to obtain car insurance. However, the contract was terminated in May 2023 after city officials determined the program did not work as intended. The Ocean Springs Board of Aldermen voted to interplead the city's portion of those funds ($468,681.13) into Divine v. Securix, a federal class action lawsuit currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. "This decision allows the city to do the right thing by ensuring these funds are handled fairly and lawfully through the federal court system," said Mayor Bobby Cox. "It reflects our commitment to accountability and to protecting the interests of our residents." [GN] SIX FLAGS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Cedar Fair Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or acquirers of Six Flags Entertainment Corporation f/k/a CopperSteel HoldCo, Inc. (NYSE: FUN) common stock pursuant or traceable to the company's registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the July 1, 2024 merger of legacy Six Flags Entertainment Corporation ("Legacy Six Flags") with Cedar Fair, L.P. ("Cedar Fair"), and their subsidiaries and affiliates (the "Merger"), have until January 5, 2026 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Six Flags class action lawsuit. Captioned City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, No. 25-cv-02394 (N.D. Ohio), the Six Flags class action lawsuit charges Six Flags and certain top executive officers with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Six Flags class action lawsuit, please provide your information at this link: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-six-flags-entertainment-corporation-f-k-a-coppersteel-holdco-inc-class-action-lawsuit-fun.html CASE ALLEGATIONS: Six Flags is an amusement park operator. The Six Flags class action lawsuit alleges that the registration statement for the Merger failed to disclose that, notwithstanding its executives' claims that the company had pursued transformational investment initiatives in the years leading up to the Merger, Legacy Six Flags in fact suffered from chronic underinvestment and its parks required millions of dollars in additional capital and operational expenditures above the company's historical cost trends in order to maintain (let alone grow) Legacy Six Flags' share in the intensely competitive amusement park market. Additionally, after taking over as CEO in November 2021, defendant Selim Bassoul slashed employee headcount to cut costs, but in so doing had degraded the company's operational competence and guest experience. In short, at the time of the Merger, Legacy Six Flags required a massive, undisclosed capital infusion to turn the company around, and these acute capital needs undermined the entire rationale for the deal as portrayed in the registration statement. On the Merger closing date, July 1, 2024, Six Flags stock traded above $55 per share. The price of Six Flags stock subsequently fell as low as $20 per share, a nearly 64% decline. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint at https://www.rgrdlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/SixFlags/complaint.pdf . ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in securities-related class action cases – more than the next five law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page for more information: https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contact: J.C. Sanchez, Esq. Jennifer N. Caringal, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 (800) 449-4900 info@rgrdlaw.com [GN] SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Allen Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06037 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2025) alleges that the Defendant violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and New York General Business Law, by disclosing the Plaintiff's and Class Members' private and confidential information without consent and contrary to the Defendant's representations of confidentiality. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, despite reasonable expectations of privacy, and the Defendant's legal duties to prevent the disclosure of such private information, Defendant intercepts and discloses information provided by consumers on loan and credit card applications to LinkedIn Corporation ("LinkedIn") and Meta Platforms, Inc. ("Facebook"). Synchrony Financial operates as a consumer financial services company. The Company provides a range of credit products through programs established with a diverse group of national and regional retailers, local merchants, manufacturers, buying groups, industry associations, and healthcare service providers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main St., Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0708 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: aleslie@bursor.com TESLA GENERAL: Faces Class Suit Over UM/UIM Benefits Underpayment ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shefi Ben-Hutta of Coverager reports that Tesla General Insurance is facing a class action lawsuit in Arizona accusing the company of concealing and underpaying uninsured and underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) benefits. The suit, filed November 4, 2025, alleges Tesla violated state law by failing to provide the required written offer to equalize UM/UIM limits with liability limits and by refusing to disclose or stack coverages owed to policyholders. The lead plaintiff, ICU nurse Athena Boggs, was 'severely' injured in a May 2025 car accident after another driver, covered by Progressive with $100,000 in liability limits, ran a red light. Despite medical expenses exceeding $125,000 and 20 weeks of lost income, Tesla allegedly tendered only $25,000 in UIM benefits -- far below what the suit claims she was owed under Arizona law. Her husband, Plaintiff Miiller, originally purchased the auto policy from State National, later transitioned to Tesla General Insurance through a March 2025 "Notice of Non-Renewal and Offer." The lawsuit contends Tesla failed to issue a mandatory written offer for equalized UM/UIM limits when switching policies. According to the complaint, Tesla misrepresented coverage amounts, attempted to condition payment on a release waiving future claims, and ignored statutory requirements to inform insureds of their right to stack UIM coverages across two vehicles -- coverage that would have totaled $200,000. [GN] TFG HOLDINGS: Agrees to $4.8MM Multi-State Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that TFG Holdings, the clothing giant behind brands JustFab, ShoeDazzle and FabKids, has reached a $4.8 million multi-state settlement with 33 attorneys general over claims that it misled consumers when advertising VIP memberships. Under the terms of the settlement, the company has agreed to issue automatic refunds, valued at approximately $3.8 million to eligible consumers and pay $1 million in costs to the participating states. The TFG Holdings settlement benefits consumers who enrolled in a JustFab, ShoeDazzle or FabKids VIP program before May 31, 2016. The AGs claimed that TFG Holdings automatically enrolled consumers in its VIP programs, which charged $49.95 per month unless skipped. According to the investigation, consumers often did not realize they were enrolled in these programs, and cancellation was intentionally complicated. Consumers who enrolled in a VIP program before May 31, 2016, will automatically stop being charged for these programs. However, they may still be charged if they've made later purchases, skipped payments or redeemed credits through the program. Individuals who made an initial purchase and never took additional action will receive automatic restitution from the settlement. Additional refund applications for consumers with unresolved eligible complaints must be submitted by email to TFGHoldingResolutions@jfbrands.com or to a participating state attorneys general's office by Jan. 30, 2026. As part of the settlement, TFG Holding has agreed to: -- Comply with all consumer protection laws in every participating state. -- Clearly disclose all terms of its VIP program, including any fees, enrollment details, and cancellation rights. -- Obtain express consent from consumers before enrolling them in the program. -- End misleading sales tactics, such as false or time-sensitive offers. -- Provide a simple online cancellation process and promptly honor all cancellation requests. -- Issue refunds for certain recurring charge balances from the past year. The TFG Holding settlement affects consumers in the District of Columbia and the following states: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Texas, District of Columbia. Who's Eligible Consumers in participating states who enrolled in a JustFab, ShoeDazzle or FabKids VIP program before May 31, 2016. Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase Refunds will be automatically processed. A written complaint to TFGHoldingResolutions@jfbrands.com is required for additional refunds. NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 01/30/2026 Case Name N/A Final Hearing N/A Settlement Website N/A Claims Administrator TFGHoldingResolutions@jfbrands.com Class Counsel N/A Defense Counsel N/A [GN] U.S. PAROLE: Court Denies Prelim Injunction Bid in "Braxton" ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Kenan Braxton, et al., Plaintiffs, v. United States Parole Commission, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 25-3534 (SLS) (D.D.C.), Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The case involves significant questions about the legitimacy of the United States Parole Commission in light of the ongoing federal government shutdown. Kenan Braxton, Stanley Petty, and Michael Dunbar are D.C. Code offenders who were recently arrested and detained by order of the Parole Commission for violations of the conditions of their supervised release. They brought this putative class action challenging the Commission's authority to order their detention or incarceration. They alleged that the Commission was abolished at 12:01 a.m. on October 1, 2025, when Congress failed to pass a budget and extend the expiration date for the Commission's enabling statute. The Plaintiffs asked the Court to enter a preliminary injunction declaring that the Commission has no authority to act and ordering the release of 70 individuals currently incarcerated for violations of the conditions of their supervised release. The Court declined to take such extreme action. The Plaintiffs' allegations in this case are grave. The Court takes seriously the prospect that the Commission is ordering the arrest and detention of D.C. offenders without legal authority to issue such orders. But at the same time, the Commission has been lawfully overseeing the supervision of D.C. Code offenders for nearly three decades. And there is no entity in place to take over these responsibilities. The Plaintiffs proposed that the Court shutter the Parole Commission and issue a conditional writ releasing 70 individuals currently incarcerated unless the D.C. government takes action in seven days to create or designate a new entity to assume the Commission's responsibilities. The Plaintiffs admitted that the D.C. government has been unable to accomplish this task despite repeated calls to do so over the past two decades. The Plaintiffs proposed that these 70 individuals be released and that approximately 1,600 D.C. offenders be effectively released from supervision with no entity in place to enforce violations of the conditions of their supervised release. Such relief would blow up the existing supervised release system in the District, causing disruption and uncertainty for the offenders on supervision, the courts that sentenced them, the government agencies involved in overseeing their supervision, and the public. And the Plaintiffs asked the Court to light this fuse knowing that shortly afterwards, Congress may pass a budget and clarify that the Commission retains its longstanding authority to oversee D.C. Code offenders, requiring the reassembly of the supervision program the Court has dismantled. Congress established the United States Parole Commission in 1976 to provide fair and equitable parole procedures for federal prisoners. In 1984, Congress enacted two major reforms. It created the United States Sentencing Commission to enact sentencing guidelines aimed at promoting greater consistency and uniformity in sentencing. And it replaced federal parole with supervised release, which is overseen entirely by the federal courts rather than the Parole Commission. In abolishing federal parole, Congress also enacted a plan to phase out the Parole Commission. Specifically, the Sentencing Reform Act provided that the Commission would cease to exist five years after the Act became effective. In 1997, Congress seemed to breathe new life into the Commission. In the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Act of 1997, Congress abolished the D.C. Board of Parole and provided that the U.S. Parole Commission would assume the Board's responsibility for overseeing the parole of offenders who committed felonies under the District of Columbia Code. In so doing, Congress granted the Commission authority over D.C. offenders sentenced to supervised release and increased the authorized number of Parole Commissioners to five. In recent years, Congress's extensions have gone from years to months and have gotten tangled up in the continuing resolutions that Congress has repeatedly passed to avoid shutting down the federal government. On September 30, 2025, when Congress failed to pass an appropriations bill leading to the ongoing federal government shutdown, it also failed to expressly extend the Commission's sunset provision. Kenan Braxton has been serving a term of supervised release since February 2024, following D.C. Code felony convictions in 2023. Mr. Braxton was arrested on September 10, 2025, pursuant to a Parole Commission warrant alleging that he had violated certain terms of his release by failing to submit to drug testing or report to his supervising officer on multiple occasions. Mr. Braxton is currently being held at the D.C. Jail pending a final revocation hearing regarding his alleged violations. Stanley Petty began a three-year term of supervised release in July 2025, after being incarcerated for D.C. Code felony convictions in 2021. On September 15, 2025, Mr. Petty was arrested for misdemeanor simple assault and misdemeanor second-degree theft. The next day, Mr. Petty was released on his own recognizance by the D.C. Superior Court. On September 19, 2025, however, the Parole Commission issued a warrant application for Mr. Petty, which was executed on September 24, 2025. Since that date, Mr. Petty has been incarcerated at the D.C Jail. Michael Dunbar began a three-year term of supervised release in March 2025 following his incarceration for D.C. Code felony convictions in 2023. On August 8, 2025, a Parole Commission hearing examiner held a probable cause hearing related to allegations that Mr. Dunbar had violated the terms of his supervised release by using illicit substances and committing misdemeanor destruction of property. The hearing examiner found probable cause but recommended that Mr. Dunbar be reinstated to supervision rather than be incarcerated. The Commission ignored this recommendation and, on August 11, 2025, ordered that Mr. Dunbar be held at the D.C. Jail pending a revocation hearing. On October 6, 2025, the Commission revoked Mr. Dunbar's supervised release and sentenced him to 16 months of incarceration. The Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that this relief is warranted. At this early stage, however, the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently shown that they will be irreparably harmed in the absence of the preliminary injunction they request. Nor have they shown that the balance of equities and the public interest favor granting such relief. The Plaintiffs have not shown that they will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief or that the balance of equities and the public interest favor granting the relief they request. The Court finds neither argument persuasive. The Plaintiffs have not shown that the relief they seek would result in their release. The Plaintiffs acknowledged that any judicial officer stepping into the shoes of the Parole Commission may order Plaintiffs or putative class members detained pending revocation or even revoke supervised release and sentence them to terms of imprisonment. It is unclear, then, how the Plaintiffs are being concretely harmed, much less, irreparably harmed, by the Parole Commission's detention decisions. The Court finds that the balance of equities and the public interest tip sharply in the Defendants' favor. While it is not clear that the Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, granting the Plaintiffs' requested relief would have an immediate and significant impact on the Parole Commission by preventing it from overseeing the supervision of D.C. Code offenders as it has lawfully done for nearly three decades. Under the worst of circumstances, if the D.C. government does not manage to designate or create an entity to assume supervision responsibility, the writ would cause 70 offenders with supervision violations to be released. And these offenders and the 1,600 others under supervision would suddenly have no entity authorized to hold them accountable for violations of their supervised release conditions. Because the Plaintiffs have failed to show irreparable harm or that the balance of equities and public interest favor relief, the Court declined to evaluate their likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. Accordingly, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Court further ordered that the Parties meet and confer and jointly file a proposed expedited summary judgment briefing schedule by November 6, 2025, for the Court's consideration. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fXjDvV from PacerMonitor.com UNITED BIOSOURCE: Loses Bifurcation Request in Steamfitters' Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Steamfitters Local Union No. 420, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. United Biosource Corporation, now known as United Biosource LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of United Biosource Holdings, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 19-3047 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Kelley B. Hodge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the Defendant's request to bifurcate the proceeding under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b). The bifurcation issue was originally raised by the Defendant in the December 28, 2022 Joint Status Report following Mallinckrodt ARD LLC's Notice of Bankruptcy Discharge. The Court ordered supplemental briefing on the bifurcation issue on October 9, 2024 after a status hearing with the parties on October 7, 2024. The Court further denied as moot the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike the Defendant's Request for Judgment on the Pleadings because the Court ruled that the Bankruptcy Court's decision does not act as collateral estoppel to this case. A copy of the Court's copy is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AeA7lz from PacerMonitor.com UNIVERSE CC INC: Madueno Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Luis Madueno, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. UNIVERSE CC, INC., CHUANG HENG REGO PARK LLC, EFIN MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, H&Z BUILDING CONSULTING, INC., EDGAR HERNANDEZ, MAYLING GUIM, EDWIN CRUZ, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:25-cv-06028 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for their violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL") as a result of the Defendants unpaid overtime wages. The Defendants carried out an unlawful payroll policy and practice by failing to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, and retaliated against Plaintiff when he complained of the non-payment of the amount Defendants owe to him, in violation of the FLSA & NYLL. Further, Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of his disability following a work-related injury and failed to afford him a reasonable accommodation in violation of the NYSHRL. The Plaintiff has therefore commenced this action to recover unpaid wages he has been deprived of, plus interest (pre-judgment and post-judgment), liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in the State of New York during the period of February 2022 through November 2022. Universe is a business entity organized under the laws of New York with a primary office located in Elmhurst, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emanuel Kataev, Esq. SAGE LEGAL LLC 18211 Jamaica Avenue Jamaica, NY 11423-2327 Phone: (718) 412-2421 (office) Phone: (917) 807-7819 (cellular) Fax: (718) 489-4155 Email: emanuel@sagelegal.nyc UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Data Breach Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that the University of Pennsylvania failed to properly protect the personal information of students, alumni, faculty and others after a hacker sent an expletive-laden email blast on October 31, 2025. According to the 51-page data breach lawsuit, several "@upenn.edu" email accounts associated with the Philadelphia-based university's Graduate School of Education received cryptic emails on October 31 that stated that "all your data will be leaked," along with other criticisms of the school. Per the case, the majority of these emails came from different senders with official University of Pennsylvania email addresses. Shortly after the email blast went out, the case says, a UPenn spokesperson told The Daily Pennsylvanian that "that we are actively and quickly investigating and taking immediate steps to stop these emails from being sent . . . Our IT team at Penn GSE and the University's IT team and Crisis Response Teams are working as quickly as they can." Per the lawsuit, the unauthorized third-party that accessed several UPenn email accounts allegedly breached private, personally identifiable information (PII), including names, addresses, Social Security numbers and demographic details. The lawsuit argues that the University's negligence is to blame for the hacker's ability to access "everything they need to commit identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals." Further, the case contends that UPenn violated the Federal Trade Commission Act by failing to implement reasonable measures to protect private information in line with industry privacy guidelines and standards. The plaintiff, an Illinois resident, is a UPenn alum who also received the threatening email stemming from the data breach. The plaintiff's information, along with that of thousands of other students, alumni, UPenn donors and staff, is obtained and stored by UPenn "as part of its business" as a university, the suit says. The UPenn data breach class action lawsuit looks to cover all individuals whose personally identifiable information was compromised during the University of Pennsylvania data breach, including all those who were sent a notice letter after the incident occurred. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Data Breach Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Hsiung, writing for The Daily Pennsylvanian reports that Penn has faced a wave of class action lawsuits alleging it did not take sufficient steps to protect confidential data following security breach of "select information systems." As of publication, The Daily Pennsylvanian identified four separate lawsuits filed by Penn graduates that allege the University was negligent in implementing adequate cyber security measures. The lead plaintiffs are 2014 College graduate Christopher Kelly, 2018 University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School graduate Mary Sikora, 2014 College graduate Christian Bersani, and 2022 Graduate School of Education graduate Kelli Mackey. Three of the lawsuits were filed on Tuesday, November 4, following Kelly's filing. Requests for comment were left with Kelly and Bersani. Mackey and Sikora could not be reached for comment by the time of publication. The text used in three of the lawsuits is identical, with Kelly first submitting the filing on Nov. 3, followed by Sikora and Bersani on Nov. 4. The filing claimed that Penn was negligent in several areas, including failing to "maintain an adequate data security system to reduce the risk of data breaches and cyber-attacks," "properly monitor its own data security systems for existing intrusions," and "ensure that its vendors with access to its computer systems and data employed reasonable security procedures." A fourth lawsuit -- filed by Mackey -- lodged similar complaints against the University, alleging that Penn failed "to protect the sensitive information of its students, alumni, and donors." The lawsuit alleged that when the plaintiff was a student at GSE, she was "required" to share her "Personally Identifiable Information" with the University and chose to remain on Penn's email list "to keep updated on alumni events, university news, and to receive other miscellaneous announcements." On Nov. 2, BleepingComputer reported that a hacker claiming responsibility for the data breach alleged that they stole data from 1.2 million students, alumni, and donors. Mackey's lawsuit alleged that the data breach "appears to be much broader and more damaging than Defendant is currently recognizing." "The full extent of the repercussions of the Data Breach have not yet been discovered, and the consequences as such will likely continue to arise as time goes on," the lawsuit stated. Penn addressed the data breach in a message to the community, stating that it has been "contained." In the email, Joshua Beeman -- Penn's interim vice president of information technology and interim chief information officer -- wrote that the University is still investigating the "nature of the information" that was obtained in the breach. The statement also referred community members to a webpage titled "Cybersecurity incident information and FAQ" that contains more information about the University's response to the breach. [GN] VICTORIA'S SECRET: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Wurm Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- CHARMING WURM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VICTORIA'S SECRET DIRECT BRAND MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. CACE-25-016524 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Oct. 28, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Victoria's Secret Direct Brand Management, LLC retails apparel and accessories. The Company offers lingeries, bras, panties, pajamas, sleepwear, swimsuits, and other apparel, as well as offers personal care and beauty products for women. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 Facsimile: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com WINCO HOLDINGS: Wolford Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Winco Holdings, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Joseph Wolford, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Winco Holdings, Inc., Winco Foods, LLC, Does 1-100, Case No. 25CV025672 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 28, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Winco Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.wincofoods.com/ -- operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, retails bulk food, fresh produce, meat, deli, seafood, and bakery products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arby Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 Arden Ave., Ste. 203 Glendale, CA 91203-4007 Phone: 818-265-1020 Fax: 818-265-1021 Email: arby@calljustice.com WITHUMSMITH+BROWN PC: Carmer Sues Over Drop in Share Price ---------------------------------------------------------- ROCHELLE CRAMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WITHUMSMITH+BROWN, PC; WILDERMUTH FUND; WILDERMUTH ADVISORY, LLC; DANIEL WILDERMUTH; GERARD SCARPATI; CAROL WILDERMUTH; ANTHONY LEWIS; R. MARTEL DEY; RANDALL FRETZ; and DONALD R. HENRY, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-17032 (D.N.J., Oct. 29, 2025) seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, as a result of the undisclosed, severe underperformance of the portfolio companies, falsification of the asset values and reliance on the Defendants' false assertions about the value of the portfolio companies without sufficient, credible evidence to support it, the lack of reasonable internal financial controls and independence, including a dysfunctional Board, Fair Value Committee and Valuation Committee, rampant conflicts of interests, the Wildermuth Fund's financials were materially false and misleading and the Net Asset Value ("NAV") was grossly overstated throughout the Class Period. In addition, the Adviser knowingly took an excessive advisory fee based on the Fund's falsely inflated NAV. Throughout the Class Period, the Fund's auditor, WithumSmith+Brown, PC (hereinafter, the "Auditor"), knew or was reckless in not knowing the Fund and Adviser Defendants lacked credible support for the Fund's valuations of its portfolio companies yet repeatedly issued a clean, unqualified audit opinion asserting that the "financial statements and financial highlights present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the [Fund]." The Auditor also falsely claimed that it had conducted its "audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB." However, the PCAOB fined the Auditor $2 million for violating PCAOB audit standards from at least January 2020 through April 20221 and found numerous instances of the Auditor's non-compliance with applicable audit standards during the PCAOB's annual inspections throughout the Class Period. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common stock, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Withumsmith+Brown, PC provides other financial services. The Company offers business advisory, valuation, accounting, digital transformation, cybersecurity, tax, and auditing services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa Rodriguez, Esq. Catherine Pratsinakis, Esq. Mariah Heinzerling, Esq. DILWORTH PAXSON LLP 1650 Market Street, Suite 1200 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215)-575-7000 Email: lrodriguez@dilworthlaw.com cpratsinakis@dilworthlaw.com mheinzerling@dilworthlaw.com - and - Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq. Matthew Peller, IV, Esq. Susan Hu, IV, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 Email: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com mpeller@scott-scott.com shu@scott-scott.com ZUMPANO PATRICIOS: Judge Dismisses Cybersecurity Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo Finance reports that Zumpano Patricios has obtained dismissal of a class action lawsuit filed in response to a cybersecurity incident affecting the firm. U.S. District Court Judge Beth Bloom dismissed the complaint and closed the case on November 3, 2025, ruling that plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient injury to proceed with their claims. Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit within days of Zumpano Patricios sending notices of a cyber-security attack. Judge Bloom determined that the complaint merely speculated about potential harm from the cybersecurity event rather than demonstrating actual damages, which are required under federal law to establish standing. The plaintiffs in the class action alleged that the cybersecurity incident placed their personal information at increased risk of future misuse. The court examined whether this allegation of increased risk constituted a sufficient injury to confer standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Judge Bloom concluded that the complaint failed to meet this threshold requirement. The court's opinion clarifies that evidence of a data breach alone does not satisfy injury requirements for proceeding with litigation. The ruling emphasizes that plaintiffs must demonstrate actual harm rather than theoretical possibilities of future injury. This standard applies even when a cybersecurity incident has been confirmed and notices have been sent to affected individuals. "The Judge's opinion establishes that the courthouse is not open to claims of mere hypothetical harm," said a spokesperson for Zumpano Patricios. "In the current environment of rampant cyber-attacks on computer systems around the world, this ruling provides important clarity." American businesses face thousands of cyber-attacks annually. The Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that cybercrime complaints have increased substantially in recent years, with data breaches affecting organizations across all sectors. Without requirements for demonstrating actual injury, courts could face an increased volume of lawsuits following data breaches. Judge Bloom's dismissal resolved the case at the pleading stage, before discovery or trial proceedings. Her opinion addresses the legal framework for evaluating standing in data breach cases, examining the distinction between alleged harm and actual injury. Plaintiffs' allegations did not cross the threshold from speculation to concrete harm, the court found. About Zumpano Patricios Founded in 2003 and headquartered in Coral Gables, Zumpano Patricios operates offices in Miami, New York City, White Plains, Chicago, Salt Lake City, and Las Vegas. The firm specializes in complex litigation, healthcare law, international disputes, and asset recovery. Notable achievements include recovering over $300 million for healthcare providers and securing landmark judgments in anti-terrorism cases. Contact ZUMPANO PATRICIOS Phone: (305) 444-5565 Email: info@zplaw.com Website: www.zplaw.com [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 ***