251114.mbx

251114.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, November 14, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 228 Headlines 4 EAST 46TH: Cruz Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Steakhouse/Bar Staff ANDERSON MECHANICAL: Faces Perez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Va. ANTHEM COMPANIES: Lazaar Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 2nd Cir. ARROW SENIOR: Faces Kelly Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Mo. BAY VALLEY: Underpays Lab Technicians, Medina Suit Alleges BELGIAN BRASSERIE: Tzitzimit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Dishwashers BEST FOOD: Romero Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Supermarket Workers BJH HOLDING: Fails to Protect Customers' Personal Info, Tanner Says BOHANNON INVESTMENTS: Faces Valdez Wage-and-Hour Suit in W.D. Tex. CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY: Faces Schechter Suit Over Jewish Discrimination CONDUENT INC: Smith Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info COUSINS GROCERY: Court Awards $36K in Damages in "Vazquez" DARRELL WHEELER: Court Partially Junks "Baptist" Claims DATAMAXX TECHNOLOGIES: Bass Suit Over Compromised Clients' Info DEXCOM INC: Faces Prime Suit Over Decline of Securities Price DJGN INDY: Smith Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Servers DOORDASH INC: Fails to Provide Consumer Reports, Woolverton Says ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Ringgold Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit FSG DIGITAL: Operates Illegal Casino Website, Ruiz Suit Claims GREEN COUNTY EMERGENCY: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Anglin Says HEALTH CARE: Fails to Properly Secure Personal Info, Ruddick Says HIGH 5 GAMES: Operates Illegal Online Gambling, Simonich Alleges J A ALEXANDER: "Montero" Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK JOHN PAUL: Appeals Motion for Leave Order in Heagney Class Suit KELLOGG SUPPLY: Fertilizers Contain PFAS, Valdez Suit Alleges KENAN ADVANTAGE: Fails to Properly Pay Truck Drivers, Paez Claims LAIRD SUPERFOOD: Faces Fischer Suit Over Deceptive Fees MALNATI ORGANIZATION: Hampton Files Suit Over ADA Violation MAXIMUS INC: Suit Alleges Mismanaged Medical Assistance Program MT. SINAI: Vasquez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff MUNICIPAL PARKING: Unlawfully Obtains Drivers' Data, Levine Says NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Bailon Class Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y. NEXAR INC: Socol Sues Over Dash Cameras' False Security Claims PAUL PERRY: Court Grants Habeas Corpus Petitions in "Sarmiento" PHH CORP: Faces Touma Suit Over Improper Interest Rates & Fees PREMIER EVENTS: Rawls Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Improper Tip Pool PROSPER FUNDING: Taylor Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access RANCH MINI: Perea Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Deli Workers RISLEY COMMONS: Disabled Can't Access Properties, Maurer Suit Says STAKE CENTER: Lowe Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SWEEPSTEAKS LIMITED: Killham Sues Over Illegal Online Casino Games TAYLOR JAMES: Faces Wright Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TREMPEALEAU COUNTY, WI: Elliott Appeals Dismissal Order to 7th Cir. UNITED STATES: Sheresky Files Administrative Case in S.D.N.Y. UNITED STATES: Urban Suit Seeks to Stop ABAWD Waiver Termination UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS: DeLara Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. USA FENCING: Allows Men in Women Advertised Events, Vincenti Says WANRONG TRADING: Court Directs Arbitration in "Diaz" XEROX HOLDINGS: Stephenson Sues Over Website's Access Barriers ZYNGA INC: Operates Illegal Gambling Games, Barbarino Suit Claims Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Defends Product Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Defends 900 New PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Domtar Corp. Faces Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESAB Corp. Reports 14,157 Unresolved PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Estée Lauder Has 91 Pending Cases as of Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Idex Corp. Defends Product Liability Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Has $42MM Reserves as of Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Defends 405 PI Lawsuits as of Sept. 30 ********* 4 EAST 46TH: Cruz Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Steakhouse/Bar Staff ------------------------------------------------------------------ VALENTIN VIVAR CRUZ, BRANDON VENTURA GARCIA, and DIEGO RIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 4 EAST 46TH STREET LLC (d/b/a MOCHA LUX STEAKHOUSE BURGERS), 127 FOURTH AVENUE RESTAURANT LLC (d/b/a MOCHA RED STEAKHOUSE & MIXOLOGY BAR), NAFTALI ABENAIM and OFER BITON, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08933 (S.D.N.Y., October 28, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, failure to provide accurate wage statements, improper withholding of tips, and failure to reimburse business expenses. The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants who were primarily employed as waiters, food runners, and busboys at any time between 2021 and 2025. 4 East 46th Street LLC, doing business as Mocha Lux Steakhouse Burgers, is a steakhouse owner and operator in New York, New York. 127 Fourth Avenue Restaurant LLC, doing business as Mocha Red Steakhouse & Mixology Bar, is a steakhouse and bar owner and operator in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 ANDERSON MECHANICAL: Faces Perez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Va. --------------------------------------------------------------- ADELAIDA PEREZ and JUAN MATOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ANDERSON MECHANICAL SERVICES, LLC d/b/a VERTICAL MECHANICAL GROUP and DYLAN'S PLUMBING & CLEANING SERVICE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01875 (E.D. Va., October 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Virginia Minimum Wage Act, the Virgina Overtime Wage Act, and the Virginia Wage Payment Act including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, and misclassification and paycheck transparency. Plaintiffs Perez and Matom were employees of the Defendants who performed plumbing work from approximately May 12, 2025 through July 29, 2025, and from approximately September 2024 through July 1, 2025, respectively. Anderson Mechanical Services, LLC, doing business as Vertical Mechanical Group, is a provider of installation, repair, and maintenance of plumbing, heating, air-conditioning, and ventilation products based in Virginia. Dylan's Plumbing & Cleaning Service, LLC is a plumbing and cleaning services provider based in Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Hanna, Esq. David Rodwin, Esq. Julia Eger, Esq. MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC 1401 K. Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 223-2620 Facsimile: (202) 296-9600 Email: mhanna@murphypllc.com drodwin@murphypllc.com jeger@murphypllc.com ANTHEM COMPANIES: Lazaar Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- LESLIE LAZAAR, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Leslie Lazaar, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The Anthem Companies, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-3075, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On April 13, 2022, Plaintiff Leslie Lazaar filed suit on behalf of herself and all other utilization review nurses who worked for Anthem in New York, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff twice amended her Complaint on May 27, 2022 and July 15, 2022 to add additional defendants and allegations. On Feb. 28, 2025, The Anthem Companies, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment, which Jessica G. L. Clarke granted on Sept. 29, 2025. The Plaintiffs' motion is denied. Motions regarding class certification and de-certification are denied as moot. Motions to seal are granted. All claims are dismissed. The appellate case is entitled Lazaar v. The Anthem Companies, Inc., Case No. 25-2714, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 28, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants LESLIE LAZAAR, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Rachhana Srey, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 South, 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Defendants-Appellees THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC., et al. are represented by: Brett Christopher Bartlett, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 1075 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 2500 Atlanta, GA 30309 ARROW SENIOR: Faces Kelly Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Mo. -------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY KELLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARROW SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-01592 (E.D. Mo., October 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly employee from approximately July 2024 through December 6, 2024. Arrow Senior Living Management, LLC is a senior housing management company, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trent B. Miracle, Esq. FLINT COOPER COHN THOMPSON & MIRACLE 222 East Park Street, Suite 500 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 205-2027 Email: tmiracle@flintcooper.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com BAY VALLEY: Underpays Lab Technicians, Medina Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- NORMA MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAY VALLEY FOODS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13096 (N.D. Ill., October 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and failure to pay for all hours worked under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a lab technician from 2014 through the present. Bay Valley Foods, LLC is a food supplier doing business in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8401 Crawford Ave., Ste. 104 Skokie, IL 60076 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 Email: james@simonsayspay.com BELGIAN BRASSERIE: Tzitzimit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Dishwashers --------------------------------------------------------------- FELIPE XAR TZITZIMIT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BELGIAN BRASSERIE LLC (d/b/a B CAFE EAST), and SKEL ISLAMAJ, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08858 (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed as a dishwasher at the Defendants' Belgian bistro located at 240 E. 75th St. New York, New York from approximately July 4, 2023 until on or about October 14, 2025. Belgian Brasserie LLC, doing business as B Cafe East, is a Belgian bistro owner and operator, located in New York, New York. [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 BEST FOOD: Romero Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Supermarket Workers ----------------------------------------------------------------- OLIVER ROMERO, HILARIO LUJAN, and VILMA VILLANUEVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BEST FOOD CORP OF NY, d/b/a KEY FOOD FRESH, FERNANDO BATISTA, and DAVID BATISTA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-05999 (E.D.N.Y., October 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay earned wages, and retaliation. Plaintiffs Romero, Lujan, and Villanueva worked for the Defendants as a butcher, butcher assistant, and meat wrapper from on or about June 2012 through August 31, 2025, from January 2025 through August 26, 2025, and from on or about April 2017 through October 2, 2025, respectively. Best Food Corp of NY, doing business as Key Food Fresh, is a grocery and supermarket owner and operator in New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 250 Broadway, Suite 600 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 323-6980 Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com BJH HOLDING: Fails to Protect Customers' Personal Info, Tanner Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JAMI TANNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BJH HOLDING CORP. and JACK'S FAMILY RESTAURANTS, LP, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08950 (D.N.J., October 28, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of confidence. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach between July 24, 2025 and August 10, 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Jack's Family Restaurants, LP is a service chain restaurant based in Birmingham, Alabama. BJH Holding Corp. is the parent company of Jack's Family Restaurants, LP, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark K. Svensson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 405 East 50th Street, Suite 408 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: msvensson@milberg.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com BOHANNON INVESTMENTS: Faces Valdez Wage-and-Hour Suit in W.D. Tex. ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRIANNA VALDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BOHANNON INVESTMENTS, LLC, DESHANE WILLIAM BOHANNON, individually and d/b/a GLOBAL CONCEPTS, COMPASS GROUP, UNPLUGGED CONCEPTS, and BOHANNON INVESTMENTS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-01380 (W.D. Tex., October 28, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to properly pay wages, including overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from May 2023 through June 2025. Bohannon Investments, LLC is a travel agency owner and operator in Texas. Global Concepts is a travel agency owner and operator in Texas. Compass Group is a travel agency owner and operator in Texas. Unplugged Concepts is a travel agency owner and operator in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roy Barrera III, Esq. Loren A. Raiford, Jr., Esq. THE BARRERA FIRM 424 East Nueva San Antonio, TX 78205 Telephone: (210) 224-5811 Facsimile: (210) 802-4633 Email: rbarrera@thebarrerafirm.com lraiford@thebarrerafirm.com CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY: Faces Schechter Suit Over Jewish Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------------- ELI SCHECHTER and TALYA MALKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY, and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-02426 (C.D. Cal., October 28, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and prohibition of discrimination. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged discrimination of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals on the basis of their Jewish race, ethnicity, and religion. According to the complaint, the Defendants excluded the Plaintiffs from participation in Chapman programs, denied them the full benefits of Chapman programs, and subjected them to discrimination, all in violation of Title VI. As a result of Chapman' actions, the Plaintiffs were injured by losing access to: educational opportunities, equal participation in the life of the university, and even physical spaces on campus solely due to their Jewish identities, says the suit. Chapman University is a private, non-profit university located in Orange, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew Mainen, Esq. 41 W. Highway 14, Unit 2078 Spearfish, SD 57783 Telephone: (301) 814-9007 Email: matt@matthewmainen.com - and - Mark Goldfeder, Esq. NATIONAL JEWISH ADVOCACY CENTER, INC. 3 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (332) 278-1100 Email: Mark@njaclaw.org - and - David M. Rosenberg-Wohl, Esq. IN EVERY GENERATION 3080 Washington Street San Francisco, CA 94115 Telephone: (415) 317-7756 Email: david@hrw-law.com CONDUENT INC: Smith Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- REAGAN SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONDUENT INCORPORATED, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-16965-MEF-MAH (D.N.J., October 28, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach from October 21, 2024, to January 13, 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Conduent Incorporated is a business services provider, headquartered in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark K. Svensson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 405 East 50th Street, Suite 408 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: msvensson@milberg.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com COUSINS GROCERY: Court Awards $36K in Damages in "Vazquez" ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Roberto Vazquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cousins Grocery and Grill Inc. d/b/a Cousins Deli, and Guytree Kuldip, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 21 CV 4528 (RML) (E.D.N.Y.), United States Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy awarded the Plaintiff $32,057.50 in attorney's fees and $4,069 in costs, for a total of $36,126.50. The Plaintiff filed this case on August 11, 2021, asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq. and New York Labor Law. Judge Levy held a bench trial on June 11, 2024, and by Memorandum and Order dated May 13, 2025, found in favor of the Plaintiff and awarded him damages against Cousins Grocery and Grill Inc. under the New York Labor Law: (1) unpaid minimum wages and overtime pay in the amount of $68,106; (2) liquidated damages in the amount of $68,106; (3) pre-judgment interest at the rate of $16.79 per day, from July 10, 2018 through the date judgment is entered; and (4) post-judgment interest at the statutory rate. The Court directed the Plaintiff's counsel to submit contemporaneous time records and documentation to support their request for attorney's fees and costs, and the law firm of Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C. did so on June 12, 2025. The Plaintiff sought to recover attorney's fees at hourly rates of $425 for senior managing attorney Roman Avshalumov, $250 for James O'Donnell, $175 for associates Katelyn M. Schillaci and Avraham Scher, and $75 for paralegals. The Court found these hourly rates reasonable. The Plaintiff requested fees for a total of 121.7 hours. Given that the parties attended mediation, conducted discovery, prepared and examined witnesses for the bench trial, and submitted post-trial briefing, the Court found this number of hours reasonable and supported, awarding the Plaintiff $32,057.50 in attorney's fees. Counsel sought reimbursement for costs directly related to litigating this case, including the court filing fee, service of process, mediator fees, deposition transcripts, and translation services. The Court found these were recoverable costs and awarded the Plaintiff $4,069 in documented costs, for a total of $36,126.50. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5jJ5DI from PacerMonitor.com DARRELL WHEELER: Court Partially Junks "Baptist" Claims ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Ezra Baptist, Juliet Pearce, Margaret Lewis, Jamie Sanin, Carolyn Lechusza Aquallo, and Chelsea Villalba, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals who suffered excessive force during their unlawful arrests, and Michelle Riddell, on her own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals unlawfully arrested, Plaintiffs, v. Darrell P. Wheeler, Sheriff Juan Figueroa, Olivia Bachor, Thomas Brusca, Deputy Sheriff Harder, and PO J. Yukoweic, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-1478 (AMN/TWD) (N.D.N.Y.), Judge Anne M. Nardacci of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York denied in part and granted in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The court denied the motion to dismiss First Amendment retaliation claims and Fourth Amendment false arrest claims against Defendant Juan P. Figueroa and Defendant James Harcher, dismissed without prejudice the Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant James Harcher, and dismissed with prejudice the Fourth Amendment seizure claims against all defendants. On December 5, 2024, Plaintiffs commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 on behalf of a putative class of individuals. Plaintiffs sued President Darrell P. Wheeler of the State University of New York at New Paltz and Ulster County Sheriff Juan P. Figueroa in their individual capacities, as well as several police officers in their individual capacities and as representatives of putative defendant classes of officers. In their amended complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated their constitutional rights through actions taken in response to a protest at SUNY New Paltz on May 2, 2024. Plaintiffs alleged that on May 1, 2024, students and community members erected a tent encampment on Parker Quad to protest the ongoing genocide in Gaza and demand SUNY New Paltz divest from entities profiting from this violence. Plaintiffs alleged that on May 2, 2024, encampment members had removed all tents by about 6:30 pm. At about 7:15 pm, University officials returned, acknowledged that the students had removed their tents, and, without providing justification, instructed them to disperse by 9:00 pm. Plaintiffs contended that the demonstrators engaged in peaceful protest by interlocking their arms and legs on the ground in a circle in the middle of Parker Quad, chanting protest songs. Around 9:30 pm, more than 15 police vehicles from the New York State Police and Ulster County Sheriff's Office, accompanied by at least 30 officers on foot, advanced toward Parker Quad. Around 10:03 pm, an unidentified officer issued a dispersal order via loudspeaker, declared the demonstrators' gathering unlawful, and gave demonstrators ten minutes to vacate Parker Quad. At about 10:30 pm, the officers stormed the former encampment area, tearing down and trampling the demonstrators' banners, which contained constitutionally protected speech. The officers moved in a tight, coordinated formation and surrounded seated demonstrators, shined flashlights in their faces, and systematically removed them. Plaintiffs alleged specific instances in which officers removed or arrested demonstrators. Unidentified officers threw Plaintiff Baptist headfirst into a pallet, causing a deep gash in his scalp that bled heavily, and then dragged him across the ground by his arms and handcuffed him. Plaintiffs alleged that unidentified officers dragged several Plaintiffs by their limbs, inappropriately touched some Plaintiffs' breasts, and tightly handcuffed Plaintiffs' wrists with zip-ties, causing them pain. Plaintiffs alleged that 170 law enforcement members arrested over 130 demonstrators for trespassing and/or engaging in disorderly conduct while they peacefully assembled to express their views on public property. To sufficiently plead that Defendant Figueroa was personally involved in First Amendment retaliation, Plaintiffs must plausibly allege that his actions were motivated or substantially caused by Plaintiffs' exercise of their First Amendment rights and that his actions caused Plaintiffs some injury. The court found that Plaintiffs had done so by alleging that Defendant Figueroa personally ordered officers to disperse and arrest lawful demonstrators and did so to stifle their rights to free speech and assembly, resulting in the end of the demonstration as well as physical injuries to some demonstrators. Therefore, the court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amendment claim against Defendant Figueroa. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant Harcher was part of a group of officers who approached Plaintiff Riddell to arrest her. The court found that Plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that Plaintiff Riddell gathered with a group of peaceful and lawful demonstrators, and her presence among that group was an activity protected by the First Amendment. Plaintiffs also plausibly alleged that Defendant Harcher arrested her without cause, and it was reasonable to infer that this arrest was motivated or substantially caused in part by the exercise of her First Amendment rights. Thus, the court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amendment claim against Defendant Harcher. Plaintiffs plausibly alleged instances in which multiple officers used excessive force. With respect to Defendant Figueroa, Plaintiffs alleged that he personally ordered officers to disperse the protest and arrest lawful demonstrators. The court found that Plaintiffs had sufficiently pled that Defendant Figueroa was personally involved in the deprivation of Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights through the use of excessive force. As to Defendant Harcher, the court found that Plaintiffs' amended complaint described Riddell's arrest in detail, but in contrast with other arrest allegations, Plaintiffs made no mention of officers using more than de minimis force, nor did they allege that officers handcuffed Riddell in a manner that was overly tight. In fact, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant Harcher and the other officers accommodated Plaintiff Riddell's request to be handcuffed in front because of her previously broken arm. Because Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege Defendant Harcher's use of excessive force, the court dismissed this claim against Defendant Harcher. The court found that Plaintiffs had sufficiently pled that Defendant Figueroa was personally involved in the deprivation of Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights via false arrest. Plaintiffs alleged that he personally ordered officers to disperse the protest and arrest lawful demonstrators. Thus, the court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for false arrest against Defendant Figueroa. Defendants argued that Plaintiffs' account of Plaintiff Riddell's arrest engaged in impermissible group pleading. However, the court found that even though Plaintiffs identified Defendant Harcher as one of a group of arresting officers, they sufficiently alleged that he was involved in the alleged constitutional deprivations, and how he was involved. As to probable cause, the court found that at this stage, Plaintiffs did not need to preemptively refute all possible assertions of probable cause but needed only plead facts sufficient to show a plausible lack of probable cause. The court therefore denied Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for false arrest against Defendant Harcher. The court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants for the seizure of their persons as duplicative of their claims for false arrest because Plaintiffs premised both sets of claims on the same alleged facts. The court also sua sponte dismissed the seizure of persons claims as against all non-moving defendants. Defendants argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege their personal involvement in the violation of any clearly established constitutional right. The court found it inappropriate to grant qualified immunity at this stage. On the face of the amended complaint, Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Defendants Figueroa and Harcher either ordered or participated in the dispersal of a lawful assembly, resulting in arrests without cause and the use of excessive force. Accordingly, the court ordered that Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amendment retaliation claim, Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, and Fourth Amendment false arrest claim against Defendant Juan P. Figueroa was denied. The court further ordered that Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amendment retaliation claim and Fourth Amendment false arrest claim against Defendant James Harcher was denied. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xoTkVv from PacerMonitor.com DATAMAXX TECHNOLOGIES: Bass Suit Over Compromised Clients' Info --------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE BASS, JAMES ARCHEY, NADEJA HINDS, JAMES BERG, STEPHEN KUNZE, and ISAIAH SOTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DATAMAXX TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-25-016383 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Jud. Cir., Broward Cty., October 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, unjust enrichment, intrusion upon seclusion/invasion of privacy, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between December 1 to December 17, 2023. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Datamaxx Technologies, Inc. is a provider of communications, data access, and intelligence services based in Tallahassee, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Steven Sukert, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA West Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com sukert@kolawyers.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS PLLC 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Gary Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com - and - Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com DEXCOM INC: Faces Prime Suit Over Decline of Securities Price ------------------------------------------------------------- ERIK PRIME, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEXCOM, INC., KEVIN R. SAYER, JACOB S. LEACH, and JEREME M. SYLVAIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08912 (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding DexCom's business, operations, and compliance policies in order to trade DexCom securities at artificially inflated prices between July 26, 2024, and September 17, 2025. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) DexCom had made material design changes to the G6 and G7 unauthorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the "FDA"); (ii) the foregoing design changes rendered the G6 and G7 less reliable than their prior iterations, presenting a material health risk to users relying on those devices for accurate glucose readings; (iii) accordingly, the Defendants' purported enhancements to the G7, as well as the device's reliability, accuracy, and functionality, were overstated; (iv) the Defendants downplayed the true scope and severity of the issues and health risks posed by adulterated G7 devices; (v) all the foregoing subjected DexCom to an increased risk of heightened regulatory scrutiny and enforcement action, as well as significant legal, reputational, and financial harm; and (vi) as a result, the Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the truth emerged, the price of DexCom's stock declined several times until it fell $8.99 per share, or 11.76 percent, over the following two trading sessions, to close at $67.45 per share on September 19, 2025. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. DexCom, Inc. is a medical device company based in San Diego, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. James M. LoPiano, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlopiano@pomlaw.com DJGN INDY: Smith Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Servers --------------------------------------------------------------- MATHEW SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DJGN INDY, LLC, RICCI CULINARY HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, RICCI CULINARY MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, and TONY RICCI, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02221-RLY-MJD (S.D. Ind., October 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Indiana Wage Payment Statute. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a server at their Tony's Steaks & Seafood restaurant in Indianapolis, Indiana from approximately August of 2020 through June or July of 2024. DJGN Indy, LLC is a restaurant owner and operator, headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. Ricci Culinary Holding Company, LLC is a restaurant owner and operator, headquartered in Loveland, Ohio. Ricci Culinary Management Group, LLC is a restaurant owner and operator, headquartered in Loveland, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. Nicole A. Chanin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 647-9242 Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com nchanin@barrettjohnston.com - and - Jason P. Cleveland, Esq. CLEVELAND LEHNER CASSIDY 1901 Broad Ripple Ave. Indianapolis, IN 46220 Telephone: (317) 388-5424 Facsimile: (317) 947-1863 Email: jason@clcattorneys.com DOORDASH INC: Fails to Provide Consumer Reports, Woolverton Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA WOOLVERTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOORDASH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00339-MW-HTC (N.D. Fla., October 28, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of taking adverse employment action, without first providing a copy of the Consumer Report to the Plaintiff. According to the complaint, the Defendant relied on information in Consumer Reports to make decisions regarding the Plaintiff, and other prospective or current employees, including, in whole or in part, as a basis for adverse employment action; such as a refusal to hire and/or termination. The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the FCRA. DoorDash, Inc. is an American company operating online food ordering and food delivery in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (816) 281-7162 Email: jwatkins@sirillp.com ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Ringgold Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- PAMELA RINGGOLD, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled In re Eyewear Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:24-cv-4826, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. This is a consolidated action brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1 & 2, and Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 26 for injunctive relief and under certain state antitrust and consumer protection statutes based on the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, which harmed hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of consumers. On Oct. 2, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted on Sept. 26, 2025. The Plaintiffs' amended complaints are dismissed with leave to replead. The Plaintiffs may file one second amended complaint by October 17, 2025. The Plaintiffs are on notice that this is their final opportunity to amend their pleading in this action to cure the deficiencies in their claims. The appellate case is entitled In re Eyewear Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 25-2703, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 28, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants PAMELA RINGGOLD, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Richard M. Paul, III, Esq. PAUL LLP 600 Broadway Boulevard, Suite 600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Defendants-Appellees ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA, et al. are represented by: Alicia R. Jovais, Esq. Belinda S. Lee, Esq. Christopher S. Yates, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 FSG DIGITAL: Operates Illegal Casino Website, Ruiz Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR RUIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FSG DIGITAL, INC. and SETH SCHORR, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00961 (D. Utah, October 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of Utah's Gambling Act. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged illegal gambling operation in Utah through their online sweepstakes casino available at www.jefebet.com. According to the complaint, the website offers chance games, which are already declared unlawful and unconstitutional in Utah. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals wagered money or other things of value on the Defendants' casino website and lost. FSG Digital, Inc. is a casino website operator, with a place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot O. Jackson, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Email: ejackson@hedinllp.com - and - David W. Scofield, Esq. PETERS SCOFIELD, Esq. 7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, UT 84093 Telephone: (801) 322-2002 Email: dws@psplawyers.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC 140 Broadway, FL 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Email: adrian@gr-firm.com GREEN COUNTY EMERGENCY: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Anglin Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANTHONY ANGLIN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREEN COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 25-cv-875 (W.D. Wis., October 27, 2025) is a collective and class action against the Defendant to recover unpaid minimum, regular, and overtime wages, liquidated damages, civil penalties, and attorney fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin wage and hour laws. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees work for Defendant as paramedics and similar emergency medical response roles. During the three years preceding this lawsuit, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were denied minimum, regular, and overtime wages under four illegal pay policies. Under the first policy, Defendant paid Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees an agreed-upon hourly rate for time spent "on ambulance," but it paid a different sub-minimum wage rate for "on call" time spent waiting to be called into the field. Second, Defendant failed to accurately record all of Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees' hours worked "on ambulance," resulting in failure to pay the agreed-upon wages for those hours. Under the third policy, Defendant refused to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for performance of work duties including mandatory cleaning, training, and attendance at administrative meetings. Under the fourth policy, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Specifically, Defendant failed to account for "on call" and unpaid hours worked, as alleged, when calculating and paying overtime wages, asserts the complaint. Anthony Anglin is a resident of Monroe, Wisconsin. Green County Emergency Medical Service, Inc., establishes, staffs, and maintains emergency ambulance services for Monroe, WI, and surrounding areas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Zoeller, Esq. Natalie L. Gerloff, Esq. Connor J. Clegg, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. Post Office Box 2155 Madison, WI 53701-2155 Telephone: (608) 257-0040 Facsimile: (608) 256-0236 E-mail: dzoeller@hq-law.com ngerloff@hq-law.com cclegg@hq-law.com HEALTH CARE: Fails to Properly Secure Personal Info, Ruddick Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- KARA RUDDICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION dba BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MONTANA, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 6:25-cv-00076-TJC (D. Mont., October 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, Invasion of Privacy, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, equitable relief, and violation of Montana Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach from October 21, 2024, to January 13, 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Health Care Service Corporation, doing business as Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana, Inc., is health insurer based in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Domenic Cossi, Esq. Maxwell E. Kirchhoff, Esq. Adam M. Shaw, Esq. WESTERN JUSTICE ASSOCIATES, PLLC 303 West Mendenhall, Suite 1 Bozeman, MT 59715 Telephone: (406) 587-1900 Facsimile: (406) 587-1901 Email: domenic@westernjusticelaw.com max@westernjusticelaw.com adam@westernjusticelaw.com HIGH 5 GAMES: Operates Illegal Online Gambling, Simonich Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- DARYL SIMONICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HIGH 5 GAMES, LLC and HIGH 5 ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-02325 (N.D. Ohio, October 28, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of Ohio Gambling Loss Recovery Act, Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services Minimum Standards, and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, individual losses, third party losses, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged illegal gambling operation in Ohio through their online gambling games at www.high5casino.com. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class members lost money in an effort to win either money (with sweeps coins) or additional playing time and amusement (with gold coins) on these illegal gambling games. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals suffered damages, says the suit. High 5 Games, LLC is a game developer, with its principal place of business in Delaware. High 5 Entertainment, LLC is a game developer, with its principal place of business in Delaware. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Rockwell, Esq. ROCKWELL LLC 47 East Wilson Bridge Road Worthington, OH 43085 Telephone: (614) 315-1970 Email: jrockwell@lawrockwell.com - and - John E. Norris, Esq. DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP 2154 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 930-9900 Facsimile: (205) 930-9989 Email: jnorris@davisnorris.com J A ALEXANDER: "Montero" Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Cristian Romero Montero, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by J A Alexander, Inc West Essex Construction, Inc. Maria Rebimbas, individually, and Joseph Dominick Rebimbas, individually, Plaintiffs, v. J A Alexander, Inc., West Essex Construction, Inc., Maria Rebimbas, individually, and Joseph Dominick Rebimbas, individually, Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-21679-JRA (D.N.J.), Judge Jose R. Almonte of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, certified the Class for purposes of settlement only as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, approved distribution of the proposed Notice, and implemented the schedule proposed by the parties for effectuating the other terms of the Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), the Court certified an FLSA Collective for settlement purposes of all individuals who worked for Defendants as non-union asphalt and concrete laborers, at any time between October 31, 2020 and June 6, 2025. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and for settlement purposes only, the Court certified a settlement class consisting of all individuals who worked for Defendants as non-union asphalt and concrete laborers, at any time between October 31, 2017 and June 6, 2025. The Court found, for settlement purposes only, that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) are satisfied. The Court appointed Cristian Romero Montero as Class Representative and Jaffe Glenn Law Group, P.A as Class Counsel for settlement purposes only. The Court found on a preliminary basis that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and is likely to obtain final approval following notice to the class members. The Court found that this case involved a bona fide dispute over wages and that preliminary approval is warranted because the Class Representatives and Class Counsel have adequately represented the class, and the proposed settlement was negotiated at arms-length. The Court further found that the relief provided is fair and reasonable, taking into account the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal, and was reached after the parties conducted extensive discovery. The Court approved the Notice and found that content of the Notice fully complies with due process and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that the notice adequately puts class members on notice of the proposed Settlement. The parties propose to disseminate the Notice by first-class mail, which shall be sent in English and Spanish to Class Members' last known addresses, with a postage-paid pre-addressed return envelope. The Court set the following settlement procedure: November 7, 2025 - Seven (7) calendar days after the Preliminary Approval Date: Defendants' Counsel will provide the Claims Administrator and Class Counsel with the Class Member mailing list in electronic form containing the following information: name and last known addresses. November 14, 2025 - Fourteen (14) calendar days after the Preliminary Approval Date: Mailing of Class Notice Packet in English and Spanish. December 30, 2025 - Sixty (60) calendar days after the Notice Package Mailing Date: Last day for Class Members to opt out of the Settlement or to submit written objections to the Settlement. No later than February 24, 2026, the parties shall submit their motion for final approval of the class settlement. March 24, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. - Final Approval Hearing. The Final Approval Hearing will be held IN PERSON at the Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Courtroom 4(d), Newark, New Jersey. March 31, 2026 (subject to the Court's final approval) - Seven (7) calendar days after the Effective Date: Defendants' Counsel will provide the Claims Administrator and Class Counsel a spreadsheet containing a calculation of settlement payments to potential Class members using the agreed upon allocation formula. If no appeal is taken from the Final Approval Order (as defined in the controlling Section), thirty-five (35) calendar days after the Court's entry of the Final Approval Order; or if an appeal is taken from the Final Approval Order, thirty five (35) calendar days from the date on which all such appeals (including, inter alia, petitions for rehearing or reargument, petitions for rehearing en banc, and petitions for certiorari or any other form of review) have been finally adjudicated and the Final Approval Order can no longer be appealed or reviewed: Settlement Payments to Class Members and Attorneys' Fees and costs payments to Plaintiffs' Attorneys A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=piTo0T from PacerMonitor.com JOHN PAUL: Appeals Motion for Leave Order in Heagney Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN PAUL MITCHELL SYSTEMS is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to appear in pro hac vice in the lawsuit entitled Randall Heagney, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. John Paul Mitchell Systems, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00687-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit is brought under the Defendant's violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act; the California's False Advertising Law; and the California's Unfair Competition as a result of the Defendant's "Cruelty Free" advertisement which is false and misleading. On Feb. 15, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to appear in pro hac vice, which the Court granted on Oct. 27, 2025. The appellate case is entitled Randall Heagney, et al. v. John Paul Mitchell Systems, Case No. 25-6818, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 28, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 3, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on November 12, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on December 11, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on January 20, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on February 19, 2026. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees RANDALL HEAGNEY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Leonard Wayne Aragon, Esq. Robert B. Carey, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP 11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000 Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85003 - and - Michella Kras, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP 1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 - and - Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Defendant-Appellant JOHN PAUL MITCHELL SYSTEMS is represented by: William A. Delgado, Esq. DTO LAW 915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1950 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Email: wdelgado@dtolaw.com - and - Megan O'Neill, Esq. DTO LAW 702 Marshall Street, Suite 640 Redwood City, CA 94063 Email: moneill@dtolaw.com - and - Donald M. Falk, Esq. SCHAERR JAFFE LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 562-4942 Email: schaerr-jaffe.com KELLOGG SUPPLY: Fertilizers Contain PFAS, Valdez Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- STACI VALDEZ, DANIELLE KERSTETTER, KYLE KERSTETTER, JOSH TEPERSON, and ANGELA WALDNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KELLOGG SUPPLY, INC. and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-02917-CAB-MMP (S.D. Cal., October 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the New York Consumer Protection from Deceptive Acts & Practices Act, and the New York False Advertising Act. The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of organic soil and fertilizer products. According to the complaint, the Defendants falsely represented the products as organic since they contain synthetic, non-organic, and harmful forever chemicals known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers would not have purchased the products or would have paid less had they known that the products contain PFAS. Kellogg Supply, Inc. is a manufacturer of farm, ranch and industrial supplies, with its headquarters in Carson, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Jennifer M. French, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 9171 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 180 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 762-1900 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 Email: todd@lcllp.com jennf@lcllp.com KENAN ADVANTAGE: Fails to Properly Pay Truck Drivers, Paez Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR PAEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KENAN ADVANTAGE GROUP, INC. and FORT TRANSFER CO., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-13136 (N.D. Ill., October 28, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for improper deductions and failure to reimburse business expenses in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a truck driver from approximately October 2018 until June 2024. Kenan Advantage Group, Inc. is a truck transporter and logistics provider, with its principal place of business in North Canton, Ohio. Fort Transfer Co. is a liquid bulk chemical carrier and storage company, with its principal place of business in Morton, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley Manewith, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, PC 5 Revere Drive, Suite 200 Northbrook, IL 60062 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 Email: bmanewith@llrlaw.com - and - Harold Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, PC 729 Boylston Street, Ste. 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com LAIRD SUPERFOOD: Faces Fischer Suit Over Deceptive Fees ------------------------------------------------------- ANNA FISCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAIRD SUPERFOOD, INC., a Nevada corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-10328 (C.D. Cal., October 27, 2025) seeks monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief from the Defendant, arising from its use of surreptitiously tacking on junk fees, including a "Carbon Offsets & Shipping Protection" fee, on all orders placed on its website without consumers' consent. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff used the Laird Superfood website to place an order for a Protein Bar Variety Pack (10pck) – 10 Pack and a bag of Prebiotic Daily Greens on September 14, 2025. When using the website, Plaintiff was repeatedly informed that she would get free shipping as part of her purchase. Plaintiff justifiably relied on this promise when choosing to make a purchase over $70. However, unbeknownst to Plaintiff, her purchase included a surreptitious "Carbon Offset & Shipping Protection" fee amounting to $2.24 that in fact represented an additional fee tacked on to Plaintiff's order for a product that provided no additional benefit to Plaintiff. The Plaintiff viewed a screen flow containing even more deceptions concerning the Carbon Offset & Shipping Protection fee, which is in Defendant's custody and control and can be obtained in discovery. Plaintiff did not know the charge existed or could be removed prior to completing her purchase, adds the complaint. The Plaintiff alleges that if she had known the true cost of her orders and that Laird Superfood was trying to extract additional payment from her hoping that she wouldn't notice, she would have chosen another method or merchant for ordering her foods. As a result of Defendant's deceptive addition of worthless fees, Plaintiff overpaid for her Laird Superfood purchase, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Anna Fischer is a citizen of the State of California and resident of Los Angeles County. Laird Superfood is a plant-based superfood brand that sells its products both through its own online website and in major retail stores such as Target. DOES 1 to 10 are fictitiously named Defendants who are, in some manner, legally responsible for the damages suffered by Plaintiff and the Class members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Cole, Esq. W. Blair Castle, Esq. KJC LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 861-7797 E-mail: kevin@kjclawgroup.com blair@kjclawgroup.com MALNATI ORGANIZATION: Hampton Files Suit Over ADA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The Malnati Organization, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-12991 (N.D. Ill., October 24, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website -- https://www.loumalnatis.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 has made an attempt to complete an online order on Loumalnatis.com on May 28, 2025. However, while navigating the website, Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility barriers. Several links and buttons were unlabeled and not properly announced by her screen reader software, making it difficult to understand their purpose and function. In addition, when she selected a pizza, the website failed to provide any notification that the product had been added to the cart or to announce warning messages displayed on screen. As a result, the Plaintiff was unable to confirm whether her selection had been processed, which led to confusion and repeated attempts to add the same item. The lack of adequate feedback and the absence of accessible interface elements created barriers that prevented Plaintiff from independently completing her order, asserts the complaint. These barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the benefits and services of Loumalnatis.com. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant'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. The Malnati Organization, LLC controls and operates Loumalnatis.com in the State of Illinois and throughout the United States. This website provides consumers with access to an array of services, including the ability to view a selection of pizzas, frozen pizzas, pastas, salads, and desserts, both for dine-in and delivery, as well as explore and purchase gift packages. Consumers across the United States use this website to explore Chicago-style pizza and access restaurant services.[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 MAXIMUS INC: Suit Alleges Mismanaged Medical Assistance Program --------------------------------------------------------------- CHRIS THACKER, MD; BENJAMIN BERGSTROM, DNP, CRNA; KIRSTEN VIRAG, RN; SARAH CARSON, RN-BSN; KATHERINE L. BURKE, RN; MELANIE BRENNAN, RN; MICHELLE MURI, RN; RONNI BOYCE, RN; CHARITY GESSAMAN, RN; SAMANTHA PESCOSOLIDO, RN, and SARAH SHELDON, RN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MAXIMUS, INC. and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 9:25-cv-00177-KLD (D. Mont., October 28, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, violation of the Montana Consumer Protection Act, tortious interference with business relations, and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The case arises from Maximus' alleged breach of its duties and standards as administrator of the Montana Medical Assistance Program (MMAP) through its failure to clearly explain its policies, procedures, and decisions. The Plaintiffs allege Maximus placed profit ahead of participant safety and recovery, imposed requirements untethered to evidence-based standards, obstructed access to records and clinical information, and interfered with Class members' ability to work. As a result, the Plaintiffs and the Class suffered damages. Maximus, Inc. is an American government services company, with its principal place of business in McLean, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory G. Pinski, Esq. CONNER, MARR & PINSKI, PC P.O. Box 3028 520 Third Avenue North Great Falls, MT 59403 Telephone: (406) 727-3550 Facsimile: (406) 727-1640 Email: greg@mttrials.com MT. SINAI: Vasquez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE VASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MT. SINAI ENTERPRISES CORP. and GUS KALAFATIS, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-06050 (E.D.N.Y., October 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook from in or about October 2019 until August 2025. Mt. Sinai Enterprises Corp. is a restaurant owner and operator, located in Suffolk County, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 MUNICIPAL PARKING: Unlawfully Obtains Drivers' Data, Levine Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEVE LEVINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MUNICIPAL PARKING SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-02920 (M.D. Fla., October 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Driver's Privacy Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of obtaining, disclosing, and/or using personal information from a motor vehicle record without consent. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered concrete harm, including but not limited to a statutory invasion of privacy, unwanted intrusion into the home via mailed demands, loss of control over sensitive Department of Motor Vehicles sourced data, and time and effort spent reviewing the mailing, researching the Defendant and its parking-operator partner, identifying how the data was obtained, and gathering and preserving records, as well as emotional distress. Municipal Parking Services, Inc. is a parking-technology provider, with its principal place of business in Austin, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles M. Garabedian, Esq. Victor Sanabria, Esq. MARK FERRER & HAYDEN 80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 374-0440 Email: victor@mfh.law charles@mfh.law NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Bailon Class Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case JESSICA BAILON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-02551, was removed from the United States District Court for the Central District of California to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on October 27, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-08895-ALC to the proceeding. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged personal injury claims. New York University is a private research university in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Michael Treglio, Esq. Isabel Rose Masanque, Esq. Mark D. Potter, Esq. POTTER HANDY, LLP 100 Pine Street Suite 1250 San Diego, CA 92111 Telephone: (415) 534-1911 Facsimile: (888) 422-5191 NEXAR INC: Socol Sues Over Dash Cameras' False Security Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID SOCOL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEXAR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-08982 (S.D.N.Y., October 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of New York Deceptive Acts and Practices Law and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its car dashboard camera products. According to the complaint, the Defendant represented the products with "reliable security features" and that offer automatic cloud uploads of critical incidents, artificial intelligence (AI)-driven insights, and real-time road alerts. In reality, the cameras were not secure, did not, in fact, protect users' privacy, and accordingly, did not abide by any industry standard. As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages. Nexar, Inc. is a manufacturer of dashboard cameras, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com PAUL PERRY: Court Grants Habeas Corpus Petitions in "Sarmiento" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Brayan Lopez Sarmiento, et al., Petitioners, v. Paul Perry, et al., Respondents, Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-01644-AJT-WBP (E.D. Va.), Judge Anthony John Trenga of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted the Petition for habeas corpus relief filed by the Petitioners. Petitioners are citizens of El Salvador and Honduras who entered the United States as unaccompanied minors and have either obtained Special Immigrant Juvenile status or have pending applications for Special Immigrant Juvenile status. Since filing the Petition, Petitioner Wilson Emanuel Zelaya Chavarria adjusted his status to lawful permanent resident and has been released from detention, and the parties jointly stipulated to his dismissal from the action. Petitioners Jhonatan and Josue Rodriguez Argueta are brothers and citizens of El Salvador, ages nineteen and twenty, respectively, with no criminal history who were apprehended by immigration officials after entering the United States without inspection as minors in 2022. No formal removal proceedings were initiated against them and they were ultimately placed in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement and released to the custody of their aunt in September 2023 by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court in Newport News, Virginia, which further found that they were eligible to submit an application to USCIS for Special Immigrant Juvenile status because reunification with their parents was not viable. Both brothers applied for Special Immigrant Juvenile status and although Jhonatan's application was approved with Deferred Action, Josue's application was denied due to his counsel's failure to respond to a request for information. On August 21, 2025, Josue and Jhonatan were apprehended by ICE and were issued a Notice to Appear, charging them with being inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) and thus removable subject to removal proceedings. After an initial bond hearing before an immigration judge, Josue and Jhonatan were released on bond for $3,000 and $2,000, respectively, but DHS appealed the decision, which automatically stayed their release. On September 18, 2025, DHS filed a motion for reconsideration of both brothers' bonds, and that same day, the immigration judge revoked their bonds without opportunity for counsel to file a response. Josue and Jhonatan are currently detained at Farmville Detention Center. Petitioner Brayan Lopez Sarmiento, a nineteen year-old citizen of Honduras, entered the United States without inspection in March 2023, and was initially apprehended by immigration officials but subsequently designated as an unaccompanied minor, transferred to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement and released to a sponsor pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1232. Brayan obtained Special Immigrant Juvenile status with Deferred Action on August 5, 2024. Based on his Deferred Action, he applied for work authorization, which was issued on November 1, 2024, with an expiration date of August 5, 2028. On August 5, 2025, Brayan was arrested by immigration officials outside his home in Washington, DC, and the next day, on August 6, 2025, USCIS terminated his Deferred Action without explanation. On September 9, 2025, an immigration judge ordered Brayan's release on a $5,000 bond, but DHS filed a notice to appeal the immigration judge's order, which stayed his release. On September 19, 2025, DHS amended Brayan's charges to include 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), as an applicant for admission without a valid entry document, after which the immigration judge revoked his previous decision, finding that he did not have jurisdiction to consider Brayan's release on bond because he was detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1225(b). Brayan has no criminal history and is currently detained at Caroline Detention Facility. Petitioners contended that their ongoing detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1225(b)(2) violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the bond regulations, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Respondents argued that Petitioners' detention is lawful and constitutional under the INA because they were detained under 8 U.S.C. Section 1225(b)(2) and not 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a). The Court concluded that Petitioners' detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a)'s discretionary framework, not Section 1225(b)'s mandatory detention procedures. The Court stated that Respondents' application of section 1225(b) to individuals like Petitioners already in the country contravenes the plain text and statutory scheme of the INA, which makes clear that section 1225(b)(2)(A)'s scope extends only to those individuals actively seeking admission into the country, and not those that have already entered the country. The Court further concluded that Petitioners' continued detention under section 1226 without a bond hearing violates their substantive and procedural due process rights. Accordingly, the Court ordered that Respondents provide Petitioners with a standard bond hearing before an immigration judge pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a) within seven days of the date of this Order. The Court further ordered that if Petitioners are granted bond by an Immigration Judge, Respondents are enjoined from denying bond to Petitioners, or from invoking the automatic stay provision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. Section 1003.19(i)(2). Also, the respondents file a status report with this Court within three days of the bond hearing, stating whether Petitioners have been granted bond, and, if their request for bond was denied, the reasons for that denial. A copy of the Court's case is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VRZghf from PacerMonitor.com PHH CORP: Faces Touma Suit Over Improper Interest Rates & Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- ALAIN TOUMA, as Trustee of the Joyce F. Touma Revocable Living Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PHH CORPORATION d/b/a PHH MORTGAGE, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-10357 (C.D. Cal., October 28, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, unjust enrichment, financial elder abuse, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligence. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged improper and impermissible interest rates and fees associated with its reverse mortgage loans. According to the complaint, the Defendant's interest rates are regularly over calculated, resulting in borrowers paying more interest than initially agreed to under their contracts. Further, the fees imposed by the Defendant are commonly beyond what is statutorily permissible. Finally, the Defendant improperly allocates set aside amounts, which limit the net principal line of credit an individual can take out. The Plaintiff seeks disgorgement of ill-gotten profits, actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs. The PHH Corporation, doing business as PHH Mortgage, is a mortgage servicer and debt collector in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan L. McBride, Esq. Jonathan Gil, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S., #101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ryan@kazlg.com jonathan@kazlg.com PREMIER EVENTS: Rawls Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Improper Tip Pool ------------------------------------------------------------------- JASON RAWLS and WAYNE MAYERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PREMIER EVENTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06145-VMC (N.D. Ga., October 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages and improper tip pool in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Rawls worked for Premier Events as a barback from approximately 2005 to 2011. Rawls rejoined Premier Events as a Project Manager in 2023. Plaintiff Mayers joined Premier Events as a barback in or around October 2024. Premier Events, LLC is an events management company in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jackie Lee, Esq. Alex Meier, Esq. LEE MEIER 695 Pylant Street NE, Suite 105 Atlanta, GA 30306 Telephone: (404) 999-4798 Email: jlee@leemeier.law ameier@leemeier.law PROSPER FUNDING: Taylor Sues Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access ------------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN TAYLOR and SARAH EDGLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROSPER FUNDING, LLC, and PROSPER MARKETPLACE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-09278 (N.D. Cal., October 28, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, injunctive/declaratory relief, invasion of privacy, and violations of the California Customer Records Act and the Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach discovered on or about September 1, 2025. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the sui. Prosper Funding, LLC is a subsidiary of Prosper Marketplace, Inc., headquartered in San Francisco, California. Prosper Marketplace, Inc. is a company that operates a peer-to-peer ("P2P") lending platform, headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David S. Casey, Jr., Esq. Gayle M. Blatt, Esq. P. Camille Guerra, Esq. CASEY GERRY FRANCAVILLA BLATT LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1811 Facsimile: (619) 544-9232 Email: dcasey@cglaw.com gmb@cglaw.com camille@cglaw.com - and - Melissa R. Emert, Esq. Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 135 Chestnut Ridge Road-Suite 200 Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone: (201) 391-7000 Facsimile: (201) 307-1086 Email: memert@kgglaw.com ggraifman@kgglaw.com RANCH MINI: Perea Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Deli Workers ---------------------------------------------------------- FRANCISCO ORTEGA PEREA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RANCH MINI MARKET & DELI INC. (d/b/a RANCH MINI MARKET & DELI), AMR ALBAZ, and NASSER ABDULLAH ABDO, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08872 (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiff Ortega was employed as a general deli worker at Ranch Mini Market & Deli, located at 2739 White Plains Rd., Bronx, New York from approximately November 2023 until on or about July 1, 2024. Ranch Mini Market & Deli Inc., doing business as Ranch Mini Market & Deli, is a supermarket/deli owner and operator, located at 2739 White Plains Rd., Bronx, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 RISLEY COMMONS: Disabled Can't Access Properties, Maurer Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DENNIS MAURER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RISLEY COMMONS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-16991 (D.N.J., October 28, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and New Jersey Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its facilities to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other persons with disabilities. The Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of their properties and businesses. The Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered architectural barriers in common areas such parking, exterior accessible route, and public restrooms. The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when such removal is readily achievable for the place of public accommodation. Risley Commons LLC is a commercial property owner and operator doing business in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger, Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N. East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Telephone: (609) 319-5399 Email: js@shadingerlaw.com STAKE CENTER: Lowe Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- KEITH LOWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STAKE CENTER LOCATING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02902-X (N.D. Tex., October 24, 2025) brings federal claims against Defendant in order to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act of 1939. The complaint relates that the Named Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly non-exempt Fiber Locator Technician - 4 from approximately April 2025 through June 2025. As a Locator, the Plaintiff's job was to locate underground utilities; troubleshoot; mark the ground using paint and flags; document utility damage, if a Lead Fiber Locator Technician and Area Manager were unavailable; and promote damage prevention. The complaint alleges that the Defendant scheduled Named Plaintiff and Putative Plaintiffs to be available to work from 5:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. seven days a week when they were scheduled for the On Call Shift. During the On Call Shift, Defendant's companywide policy required Named Plaintiff and Putative Plaintiffs to keep their work phone on and with them; required them to answer the automated call and complete the prompts to accept the work assignment; required to turn on their work computer, log into UtiliSphere, sync UtiliSphere, find the ticket at issue, review the ticket to identify the problem, and the site location, and accept the ticket—all while off-the-clock; required to visit every site even if they could resolve the issue from home; required to respond to emergency tickets within two hours, if they were already responding to another ticket and thus unavailable, to contact the contractor who initiated the ticket and resolve the conflict; would then clock out after they returned home and exited their work vehicle; and required to continue to monitor their phones and respond to additional calls until their shift ended at 7:00 a.m. Pursuant to Defendant's companywide policy, Named Plaintiff and the Putative Plaintiffs were required to clock out for 30 minutes for a meal break, regardless of whether they actually received an undisturbed 30 minute break. Due to Defendant's strict members per hour (MPH) requirements, Named Plaintiff and the Putative Plaintiffs were required to work continuously throughout their workday in order to meet their ticket quota. Failure to meet their MPH requirements could result in the Named Plaintiff and Putative Plaintiffs being disciplined, which could include termination, says the suit. The Putative Plaintiffs are all non-exempt employees employed by Defendant within three years preceding the commencement of this action who were not paid overtime at a rate of 150% their respective regular rates for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Keith Lowe is an adult resident of Greenville, Texas who worked for the Defendant. Defendant Stake Center Locating, LLC is a utility locating company that provides "complete coverage in all 48 contiguous states," including Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. Maureen Villarreal, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com Maureen@a2xlaw.com - and - Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Nickole K. Iula, Esq. Anna R. Caplan, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com niula@barkanmeizlish.com acaplan@barkanmeizlish.com SWEEPSTEAKS LIMITED: Killham Sues Over Illegal Online Casino Games ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUSTIN KILLHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SWEEPSTEAKS LIMITED, ADIN ROSS, and AUBREY DRAKE GRAHAM, Defendants, Case No. 2516-CV35089 (Mo. Cir., Jackson Cty., October 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and Revised Statutes of Missouri (R.S. Mo.) Section 434.030, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' operation of illegal online casino games in Missouri. According to the complaint, the Defendants created Stake.us, a platform marketed to U.S. consumers as a so-called "social casino" that does not permit real gambling. But in reality, Defendant Stake.us is a virtual clone of Stake.com, rebranded to mislead regulators and consumers into believing it offers harmless gameplay instead of an unlawful gambling. By offering Stake Cash that can be wagered on games of chance over the Internet and redeemed for real money, Stake is operating an unlicensed and illegal online casino. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeks recovery of gambling losses with the Defendants, an award of class counsel's fees, an injunction against further violations, reimbursement of expenses and costs of suit. Sweepsteaks Limited, doing business as Stake.us, is an operator of online casino games, located in Cyprus. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Rosemergy, Esq. 8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725-7700 Facsimile: (314) 721-0905 Email: jrosemergy@careydanis.com - and - Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. Beena M. McDonald, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 361 W. Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Email: sas@chimicles.com bmm@chimicles.com - and - Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 18146 North 93rd Place Scottsdale, AZ 85255 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Email: garrettwotkyns@chimicles.com - and - Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. Tom Kherkher, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 770006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Email: jellzey@eksm.com jsanford@eksm.com tkherkher@eksm.com TAYLOR JAMES: Faces Wright Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- JAZMINE WRIGHT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAYLOR JAMES LLC d/b/a SUPERGOOP!, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08973 (S.D.N.Y., October 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.supergoop.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Taylor James LLC, doing business as Supergoop!, is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com TREMPEALEAU COUNTY, WI: Elliott Appeals Dismissal Order to 7th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN ELLIOTT, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss in the lawsuit entitled John Elliott, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Trempealeau County, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00421-SCD, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. In February 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in state court alleging that the State of Wisconsin, all Wisconsin counties, and the city of Milwaukee violated the takings clauses of the Wisconsin and U.S. Constitutions, and the excessive fines clause of the Wisconsin Constitution. On May 9, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. On May 30, 2025, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss. On Sept. 24, 2025, Judge Stephen C. Dries entered an Order granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand and granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The appellate case is entitled John Elliott, et al. v. Trempealeau County, et al., Case No. 25-2905, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on October 27, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JOHN ELLIOTT, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Leland H. Belew, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 224-8685 - and - Paul W. Zimmer, Esq. ZIMMER & RENS LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Road Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (414) 296-6225 - and - Mitchell M. Breit, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 E. 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (347) 668-8445 - and - Adam A. Edwards, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 - and - Taylor Rens, Esq. Campbell C. Rhea, Esq. ZIMMER & RENS LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Road Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (414) 810-2678 Defendants-Appellees TREMPEALEAU COUNTY, WISCONSIN, et al. are represented by: Samuel C. Hall, Jr., Esq. Molly Woodford, Esq. CRIVELLO, NICHOLS & HALL, S.C. 710 N. Plankinton Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: (414) 271-7722 - and - Andrew T. Phillips, Esq. Matthew J. Thome, Esq. ATTOLLES LAW, S.C. 222 E. Erie Street Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 279-0962 (414) 285-0825 UNITED STATES: Sheresky Files Administrative Case in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States of America. The case is captioned as STEVE SHERESKY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-08935 (S.D.N.Y., October 28, 2025). In this case, the Plaintiffs challenge the Department of Labor's (DOL's) Advisory Opinion in the earlier filed case captioned as MATTHEW T. SHAFER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MORGAN STANLEY, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-11047, and ask this Court to set it aside as arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. Because the Advisory Opinion involves the same issues and compensation plans that Judge Paul G. Gardephe already analyzed in the earlier filed case, relating these cases serves the interests of justice and efficiency. United States of America is a federal republic in North America. [BN] UNITED STATES: Urban Suit Seeks to Stop ABAWD Waiver Termination ---------------------------------------------------------------- URBAN JUSTICE CENTER-SAFETY NET PROJECT (UJC-SNP) and LAETICIA MIGUEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BROOKE ROLLINS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08869-NRB (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The case arises from the Defendant's issuance of a notice purporting to prematurely terminate a waiver of federal work requirements for recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) who are classified as Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs), effective November 2, 2025. As a result of Defendant's unlawful action, over 100,000 New York City SNAP recipients classified as ABAWDs will be given notice on or about November 2, 2025, that they will have to find employment or begin participation in approved work programs by December 1, 2025. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs individually and as a class seek to enjoin the defendant federal agency from terminating New York's ABAWD waiver on November 2, 2025, in advance of its scheduled termination date on February 28, 2026. Urban Justice Center-Safety Net Project is a nonprofit organization in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Judith Goldiner, Esq. Edward Josephson, Esq. Pavita Krishnaswamy, Esq. Laboni Rahman, Esq. Emily Lundgren, Esq. Susannah Howe, Esq. THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY Civil Law Reform Unit 49 Thomas Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 298-5219 Email: pkrishnaswamy@legal-aid.org UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS: DeLara Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUE DELARA is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Sue DeLara, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Universal Underwriters Service Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-7410, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Plaintiff brought a class action against the Defendants for breach of their contract by unlawfully retaining sales tax when issuing a refund on a vehicle service contract. On Feb. 28, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which Judge Steven Tiscione granted on Sept. 26, 2025. The appellate case is entitled DeLara v. Universal Underwriters Service Corporation, Case No. 25-2723, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 28, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant SUE DELARA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Edward Aloysius Coleman, Esq. LEWIS SAUL & ASSOCIATES, PC 43 W. 43rd Street, Suite 351 New York, NY 10036 Defendant-Appellee UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS SERVICE CORPORATION is represented by: Michelle Joy Annunziata, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 USA FENCING: Allows Men in Women Advertised Events, Vincenti Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARGHERITA GUZZI VINCENTI, PATRICIA HUGHES, EMMA GRIFFIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. USA FENCING ASSOCIATION, DONALD ALPERSTEIN, PHIL ANDREWS, DAMIEN LEHFELDT, MOLLY HILL, KAT HOLMES, LAURYN DELUCA, SCOTT RODGERS, ANDREA PAGNANELLI, and JACKIE DUBROVICH, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00850-FJG (W.D. Mo., October 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, breach of contract, conspiracy, and negligent misrepresentation/negligence per se. The case arises from the Defendants' false advertising of events as women's sporting competitions while intentionally permitting biological men to compete in those women-only events. According to the complaint, the Defendants' action discriminated against biological women athletes and defrauded the Plaintiffs. As a result, the Plaintiffs and their families suffered significant emotional distress, financial loss, and a loss of trust in USA Fencing Association's integrity. USA Fencing Association is a nonprofit membership organization located in Colorado Springs, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Karin M. Sweigart, Esq. DHILLON LAW GROUP INC. 177 Post Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 433-1700 Email: KSweigart@dhillonlaw.com - and - Charles Xiaolin Wang, Esq. MAHDAVI, BACON, HALFHILL & YOUNG, PLLC 11350 Random Hills Road, Suite 700 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 420-7620 Email: cwang@mbhylaw.com - and - James T. Bacon, Esq. MAHDAVI, BACON, HALFHILL & YOUNG, PLLC 11350 Random Hills Road, Suite 700 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 420-7620 Email: jbacon@mbhylaw.com WANRONG TRADING: Court Directs Arbitration in "Diaz" ---------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jose Enrique Ceron Diaz, on his own and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wanrong Trading Corp., et al., Defendants, Case No. 25-CV-1575 (Merchant, J.) (Marutollo, M.J.) (E.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Marutollo of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Section 1, et seq., and stayed the action pending arbitration. Plaintiff commenced this action on January 14, 2025 against Defendants Wanrong Trading Corp., Tai He Trading Corp., Wan Chang Inc f/d/b/a C.M.J. Xing Inc, Yiang Shao a/k/a Yi Ang Shao, Xuming Ren a/k/a Xu Ming Ren, Xumao Ren a/k/a Xu Mao Ren, and Taotao Ren a/k/a Tao Tao Ren alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219, and the New York Labor Law Sections 190-199A, 650-665. Defendants removed this action to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1441 and 1446 on March 21, 2025. According to the Complaint, Defendants employed Plaintiff from on or about November 30, 2021 through the present day. Plaintiff's primary duties included preparing and delivering orders of meat (beef, pork, chicken, and duck) in Defendant's Order Preparation and Delivery Department. Plaintiff alleges that he regularly worked more than forty hours per week, generally between fifty and sixty hours per week and was paid at or around New York minimum wage at rates ranging from $15 per hour to $16.50 per hour. From the commencement of his employment until March 2025, Plaintiff claims that he was paid in cash every week. Beginning March 2025, however, Defendants purportedly began to pay Plaintiff by check. Plaintiff alleges that throughout his employment with Defendants, he had an automatic deduction of half an hour a day for lunch that was not taken for six days a week, or three hours each workweek. Plaintiff and his coworkers allegedly never received their full thirty-minute lunch break but were forced to sign off as having taken the full thirty-minute break. Defendants prepared an Agreement Regarding the Fact-Finding and Issue Resolution (FAIR) Program and Arbitration in 2018 to resolve any future issues that may arise with their employees. Defendants had the FAIR Agreement translated into both Spanish and Chinese versions to accommodate their employees who did not speak English. All new employees were required to review and execute a FAIR Agreement at or around the time of their hire. The FAIR Agreement states that by signing this agreement, You agree that all Claims (as defined in paragraph 3) between You and the Company shall be resolved exclusively by the internal dispute resolution procedures and the binding arbitration procedures described in this document. The FAIR Agreement at paragraph 3 provides that Claim includes any claim, dispute, allegation, controversy, or action between You and the Company that in any way arises from, or relates to, Your employment with the Company or the termination of Your employment with the Company. A Claim encompasses, for example, any employment, labor, wage-and-hour, overtime, and compensation claims, including, without limitation, any Claim that may arise under the following laws which include the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 or any state wage and hour laws, such as the New York Labor Law. Defendants represent that one of the documents in Plaintiff's personnel file is Plaintiff's signed agreement entitled, Acuerdo En Respecto Al Encuentro De Hechos Y Resolucion De Problemas ('FAIR') Programa Y Arbitraje, which is the FAIR Agreement translated into Spanish. Defendants provide the Court with a forensic document examiner report concluding that the signature on the signature on the FAIR Agreement is consistent with other signatures by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff contests the legitimacy of the signed FAIR Agreement and claims that he has never been presented with an arbitration agreement and that his signature was forged. Plaintiff filed affidavits by Plaintiffs Diaz, Brinez, Basurto, Neira, and Galvez with side-by-side comparisons of their handwritten signatures and all stating they never signed the FAIR Agreement. The Court applies a two-step inquiry that looks at contract principles governed by state rather than federal law. At step one, the court considers whether the parties entered into a contractually valid arbitration agreement. At step two, the court first asks, whether a court or an arbitrator should decide if the dispute falls within the scope of the agreement to arbitrate. The Court found that the parties entered into a contractually-valid arbitration agreement. Defendants filed a copy of the FAIR Agreement bearing Plaintiff's signature on the docket in this action. Defendants also provided a report from a forensic document examiner who concluded that Plaintiff's verified signatures matched the signature on the signed FAIR Agreement. The forensic scientist, Jeffrey H. Luber, based his forensic examination on visual and microscopic examinations of the signature written on the FAIR Agreement and compared it to known samples of Plaintiff's signature. Based on his forensic examination, Mr. Luber determined that Plaintiff signed his name on the FAIR Agreement document. While Plaintiff disputed that he entered into a valid arbitration agreement, the Court noted that Plaintiff did not file any reports by handwriting examiners in support of his assertion that his signature on the FAIR Agreement was forged. Plaintiff instead relies on the affidavits and side-by-side comparisons which only compare the FAIR Agreement signatures to one sample signature for each Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court rejected Plaintiff's forgery claim. The Court also found that Plaintiff's forgery claim is barred by collateral estoppel. Plaintiff advances the same forgery argument and the same affidavits in the instant case as in a prior case, Brinez v. Wan Chang Inc., Index No. 724543/2023 (Queens County Supreme). In the Brinez action, New York State Supreme Court Justice Denise N. Johnson concluded that Plaintiff's bare, unsubstantiated assertions of forgery in his respective affidavits are insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The Court determined that Plaintiff's claims are within the scope of the FAIR Agreement because the FAIR Agreement specifically identifies claims under the FLSA and the NYLL in its non-exhaustive list of covered statutory claims. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stayed this case pending arbitration. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hsR2dc from PacerMonitor.com XEROX HOLDINGS: Stephenson Sues Over Website's Access Barriers -------------------------------------------------------------- JARON STEPHENSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. XEROX HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08867 (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.shop.xerox.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Xerox Holdings Corporation is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com ZYNGA INC: Operates Illegal Gambling Games, Barbarino Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM BARBARINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZYNGA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-17015 (D.N.J., October 29, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of New Jersey law, Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services Minimum Standards, and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and claims for individual losses and third-party losses. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged illegal gambling operation in New Jersey through its online gambling games. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class members lost money in an effort to win on these illegal gambling games. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals suffered damages. Zynga, Inc. is a game developer, with its principal place of business in San Mateo, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Jason T. Brown, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Pl., #400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-000 Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com - and - Dargan M. Ware, Esq. John E. Norris, Esq. DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP 2154 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 930-9900 Facsimile: (205) 930-9989 Email: dware@davisnorris.com jnorris@davisnorris.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Defends Product Liability Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------- AMETEK, Inc. (including its subsidiaries) has been named as a defendant in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Certain of these lawsuits relate to a business which was acquired by the Company and do not involve products which were manufactured or sold by the Company. In connection with these lawsuits, the seller of such business has agreed to indemnify the Company against these claims. The Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are being defended by, such seller. The seller has met its obligations, in all respects, and the Company does not have any reason to believe such party would fail to fulfill its obligations in the future. To date, no judgments have been rendered against the Company as a result of any asbestos-related lawsuit. The Company believes that it has good and valid defenses to each of these claims and intends to defend them vigorously. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=INIxn4 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Defends 900 New PI Claims ----------------------------------------------------- Crown Holdings, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., is one of many defendants in a substantial number of lawsuits filed throughout the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. During the nine months ended September 30, 2025, the Company has received 900 new claims. Crown Cork has entered into arrangements with plaintiffs' counsel in certain jurisdictions with respect to claims which are not yet filed, or asserted, against it. However, Crown Cork expects claims under these arrangements to be filed or asserted against Crown Cork in the future. The projected value of these claims is included in the Company's estimated liability as of September 30, 2025. As of September 30, 2025, the Company's accrual for pending and future asbestos-related claims and related legal costs was $183, including $106 for unasserted claims. The Company determines its accrual without limitation to a specific time period. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UOF1gb ASBESTOS UPDATE: Domtar Corp. Faces Exposure Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------- Domtar Corporation is involved in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed primarily in U.S. state courts, including certain cases involving multiple defendants, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These lawsuits principally allege direct or indirect personal injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing premises. While the Company disputes the plaintiffs' allegations and intends to vigorously defend these claims, the ultimate resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this time. These lawsuits frequently involve claims for unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a range of possible losses, which may not be covered in whole or in part by its insurance coverage. However, unfavorable rulings, judgments or settlement terms could materially impact the Consolidated Financial Statements. Hearings for certain of these matters are scheduled to occur in the next twelve months." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ny8Zxu ASBESTOS UPDATE: ESAB Corp. Reports 14,157 Unresolved PI Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- ESAB Corporation has 14,157 and 13,452 unresolved claims for nine months ended October 3, 2025 and September 27, 2024, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. ESAB Corp. states, "Certain entities are the legal obligor, or owner, for certain asbestos obligations including long-term asbestos insurance assets, long-term asbestos insurance receivables, accrued asbestos liabilities, long-term asbestos liabilities, asbestos indemnity expenses, asbestos-related defense costs and asbestos insurance recoveries related to the asbestos obligations of the Company's legacy industrial businesses. As a result, the Company holds certain asbestos-related contingencies and insurance coverages. "These subsidiaries are each one of many defendants in a large number of lawsuits that claim personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos from products manufactured or used with components that are alleged to have contained asbestos. Such components were acquired from third-party suppliers, and were not manufactured by any of the Company's subsidiaries, nor were the subsidiaries producers or direct suppliers of asbestos. The manufactured products that are alleged to have contained or used asbestos generally were provided to meet the specifications of the subsidiaries’ customers, including the U.S. Navy. The subsidiaries settle asbestos claims for amounts the Company considers reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each claim. The annual average settlement payment per asbestos claimant has fluctuated during the past several years while the number of cases has remained substantially even versus prior year. The Company expects such settlement value fluctuations to continue in the future based upon, among other things, the number and type of claims settled in a particular period and the jurisdictions in which such claims arise. To date, the majority of settled claims have been dismissed for no payment to plaintiffs." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zkbVlK ASBESTOS UPDATE: Estée Lauder Has 91 Pending Cases as of Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Estée Lauder Companies Inc. has been named as a defendant in civil actions alleging that certain cosmetic talcum powder products they sold were contaminated with asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of September 30, 2025, there were 91 individual cases pending against the Company in state and federal courts throughout the United States, as compared to 84 cases as of June 30, 2025. During the three months ended September 30, 2025, 15 new cases were filed and 8 cases were resolved by settlement or voluntary dismissal. "In view of the number of cases pending against the Company at June 30, 2024, as well as the evolution of the litigation landscape and expectations regarding future claims at that time, the Company took action from the end of August 2024 through October 2024 to mitigate its future exposure. During that period, the Company reached agreements with certain plaintiff law firms (collectively, the "talcum litigation settlement agreements") for: (i) the resolution of over 200 pending cosmetic talcum powder matters handled by those firms as well as (ii) a process for resolving potential future cosmetic talcum powder claims expected to be brought on behalf of plaintiffs by those firms from January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2029, with annual capped amounts per year for each participating law firm." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at ttps://urlcurt.com/u?l=x43MUb ASBESTOS UPDATE: Idex Corp. Defends Product Liability Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Idex Corporation and eight of its subsidiaries are presently named as defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to products manufactured with components that contained asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These components were acquired from third party suppliers and were not manufactured by the Company or any of the defendant subsidiaries. To date, the majority of the Company’s settlements and legal costs, except for costs of coordination, administration, insurance investigation and a portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance, subject to applicable deductibles. However, the Company cannot predict whether and to what extent insurance will be available to continue to cover these settlements and legal costs, or how insurers may respond to claims that are tendered to them. Asbestos-related claims have been filed in jurisdictions throughout the United States and the United Kingdom. Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed without payment. The balance of the claims have been settled for various immaterial amounts. Only one case has been tried, resulting in a verdict for the Company’s business unit. No provision has been made in the financial statements of the Company, other than for insurance deductibles in the ordinary course, and the Company does not currently believe the asbestos-related claims will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yJXnpC ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Has $42MM Reserves as of Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- PPG Industries Inc., as of September 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, has total asbestos-related reserves of $42 million and $45 million, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company monitors and reviews the activity associated with its asbestos claims and evaluates, on a periodic basis, its estimated liability for such claims and all underlying assumptions to determine whether any adjustment to the reserves for these claims is required. Additionally, as a supplement to its periodic monitoring and review, the Company conducts discussions with counsel and engages valuation consultants to analyze its claims history and estimate the amount of the Company's potential liability for asbestos-related claims. The Company believes that, based on presently available information, the total reserves for asbestos-related claims will be sufficient to encompass all of the Company's current and estimable potential future asbestos liabilities. These reserves, which are included within Other liabilities on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets, involve significant management judgment and represent the Company's current best estimate of its liability for these claims. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at ttps://urlcurt.com/u?l=XQaGga ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Defends 405 PI Lawsuits as of Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ One of Transocean Ltd.'s subsidiaries was named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat exchangers, and involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes, alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of September 30, 2025, the subsidiary was a defendant in approximately 405 lawsuits with a corresponding number of plaintiffs. For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold in 1989. We have a coverage-in-place agreement with certain insurers and additional coverage issued by other insurers. Overall, we believe the subsidiary has sufficient resources to respond to both the current lawsuits as well as future lawsuits of a similar nature. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these matters, we do not expect the ultimate liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on our condensed consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zGG081 ********* 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 ***