251117.mbx

251117.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, November 17, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 229 Headlines 10 WEST FERRY: 3rd Cir. Revives Lundeen Case Settlement 3M COMPANY: Reynolds Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Sides Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Smith Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Toson Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Turley Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Wilkins Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 93 LUDLOW ST: Faces Uddin Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Agrees to Settle Securities Suit for $179-Mil. AEGIS FIDUCIARY: Seeks to File Opposition Under Seal AETNA LIFE: Filing for Class Cert in Gordon Due Oct. 9, 2026 ALAMO INTERMEDIATE: $2.36MM Settlement in "Presson" Has Final OK ALIGN INC: Faces Williams Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ALLIANCE COAL: Court Approves $15.2MM Settlement in "Branson" AMAZON INC: Disabled Workers Sue Over Systematic Discrimination AMAZON.COM INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 19 AMERISAVE MORTGAGE: Faces Class Suit Over Telemarketing Calls AT CORPORATION: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Property AUTOZONE INC: Shapllo Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass AVANTOR INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set December 29 AX BEAUTY: Underfills Body Cream Products, Gonzales Says B2SERVICES OU: Luckart Balks at Illegal Online Sweepstakes Casinos BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Workers' Unpaid PC Boot Up Time BANKERS TRUST: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Overdraft Fees BCI ACRYLIC: Hoffman TCPA Suit Transferred to W.D. Wash. BEYOND MEAT: Bleichmar Investigates Potential Securities Claims BJH HOLDING: Faces Wade Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Court Junks Bid to Extend Class Cert Sched BONAFIDE HEALTH: Migliaccio Sues Over Unlawful Interception BOWTECH INC: Langley Price-Fixing Suit Transferred to D. Colo. C.R. PHARMACY: $1.3MM Data Breach Suit Settlement Gets Prelim OK CAMPBELL'S COMPANY: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Marketed Chips CAMPBELL'S COMPANY: Sued Over Cape Cod Potato Chips' False Ads CAPITAL ONE: Bid for Leave to File Class Docs Under Seal Tossed CARMAX INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 2 CARTICA ACQUISITION: M&A Probes Merger With Nidar Infrastructure CENTER FOR TRANSITIONAL: Class Cert Discovery Due March 31, 2026 CHUNG LLC: Wins Partial Deposition Expense Reimbursement in "Li" CITY OF MEMPHIS: Overbilled Taxpayers for Tree-Trimming, Kiner Says COAST ALUMINUM: Conditional Cert. Filing Due March 12, 2026 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Faces Class Suit Over Lead in Toothpaste COLONY RIDGE: Agrees to Settle Marketing Texts Class Suit for $2MM COLUMBIA CASUALTY: To Defend BetterHelp in Privacy Class Action CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Willstein Says CONDUENT BUSINESS: Marshall Sues Over Unsecured PII & PHI COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Class Suit Over Kirkland Tequila False Ads COVENANT TRANSPORT: Rogers Seeks to Stay Proceedings CREDIT UNION: Settlement Prelim. Approval Tossed w/o Prejudice CVS HEALTH: Data Class Action Lawsuit Can Proceed, Court Says CYTOKINETICS INC: Faces Suit Over Misleading Aficamten Drug Claims CZAR MARKETING: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 30, 2026 DES MOINES REGISTER: Court Dismisses Fraud Class Action Suit DIGNITY HEALTH: Bid to Restore Previous Schedule Partly OK'd DISCOVERY PRACTICE: Agrees to Settle 2020 Data Breach Class Suit DOXIMITY INC: Plaintiff Considers Sealing of Class Docs EASTWOOD AUTOMOTIVE: Class Cert Bid Filing Due June 22, 2026 ELEPHANT INSURANCE: Dismissal of Holmes Suit Affirmed in Part EMPOWER BRANDS: Lucien Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Class Cert Bid in Frederick Due March 3, 2026 FAROUK SYSTEMS: Howard Mislabeling Suit Transferred to S.D. Tex. FEIBEN EXPRESS: Lainez Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages FIRST CHOICE: Final OK Hearing of $1.225M Suit Deal Set Jan. 12 FLAGSTAR BANK: Bid to Extend Pre-trial Deadlines Partly OK'd FORDHAM UNIVERSITY: Case Management Conference Due Nov. 25 FORGE GLOBAL: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Charles Schwab FRED MEYER: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 12, 2026 FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims FTW ENTREPRISES: Paylor Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit Over Defective Ultium Home Chargers GREENSKY INC: Wins Partial Summary Judgment v. Belyea GUIDECRAFT INC: Youngren Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HAIER US: Court Dismisses Duvall Class Suit HARMONY HOME: Filing for Class Cert. in Alison Due June 26, 2026 HOMETOGO INTERNATIONAL: Kishnani Sues Over Data Broker Software HOYT ARCHERY: Vale Suit Transferred to D. Colorado HUSQVARNA PROFESSIONAL: Settles Trimmers' Suit for $550,000 HYUNDAI AUTOEVER: Kantrowitz Investigates Data Breach Class Action HYUNDAI MOTOR: Hageman Can File Class Cert Bid Under Seal INNOVAGE VIRGINIA: Conditional Cert. of Nurse Employee Class Sought INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Handal Suit INSPIRE MEDICAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 5 INSPIRE MEDICAL: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Misleading Statements INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Parties Seek to Amend Scheduling Order INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces Consolidated Product Litigation IRIS USA: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Pet-Food Containers JM SMUCKER: Jeruchim Suit Seeks to File Class Docs Under Seal KANAWHA COUNTY, VA: Plaintiffs' Class Cert Bid Tossed KBR INC: Faces Class Suit Over Artificially Inflated Stock Prices KOHL'S INC: Mejico Sues Over Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail KRAFT HEINZ: Class Cert Bid Filing in Horne Due Jan. 7, 2027 KRISTI NOEM: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Response KRISTI NOEM: Parties Seek Class Cert Briefing Schedule LAUNDRY DEPOT: Court Decertifies Class in Leong LEAD DOG: Slendak Wins Conditional Cert Bid LEAFFILTER NORTH: "Wright" TCPA Case Transferred to N.D. Ohio LENS.COM INC: Martin Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal LIBERTY MUTUAL: Faces Class Suit Over Robocall Consent Practices LIFE INSURANCE: Krimbow Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class LINDA MCMAHON: Bates Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia MDL 2966: $3.48MM Awarded to Class Counsel in Xyrem Antitrust Suit MDL 2966: Class Settlement in Xyrem Antitrust Suit Gets Final Nod MDL 3160: Swails Suit Consolidated in Archery Products Row META PLATFORMS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 17, 2026 META PLATFORMS: Plaintiff Seeks to Unseal Class Certification Bid META PLATFORMS: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Opposition in Pixel Suit MIDLAND NATIONAL: Taylor Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class MIDTOWN HOSPITALITY: Valencia Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MM 879: $995K Gross Settlement in Cruz Suit Gets Final OK MONSTER BEVERAGE: Class Cert Filing in Hollien Due March 12, 2026 MURPHY REHABILITATION: Conditional Cert of Collective Action Sought NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Suit for $303-Mil. NATURAL DELI: Must Pay $212K in "Mendez" Wage Violation Case NCAA: Brantmeier Wins Class Certification Bid NORTH AMERICAN CO: Blisten Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class NOVA SCOTIA: $32MM Disabled Class Suit Settlement Gets Court OK NUMBER ONE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hernandez Says OLIVIA ENTERPRISES: Alexandria Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website PARKER-HANNIFIN CORP: Class Cert Deadlines in Naranjo Vacated PATSY'S ITALIAN: Hoti Conditional Cert Bid Partly OK'd PF CALI PAYROLL: Bid to Continue Class Briefing Tossed as Moot PHE INC: Faces T.D. Suit Over Illegal Private Info Collection PLAYTIKA LTD: Barbarino Sues Over Illegal Online Gambling Games PLUTO ACQUISITION: Class Settlement in McDowell Gets Final Nod POWER SOLUTIONS: Awaits Final Court OK of "Treadwell" Deal POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Chelsea School Dist. Joins Data Breach Suit PRIMMER PIPER: Class Cert Filing in Gaboriault Due July 31, 2026 PROSPER FUNDING: Childress Sues Over Negligent Cybersecurity PROSPER FUNDING: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Thompson Alleges PROVIEW AUTO GLASS: Charland Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona PRUSSIAN INC: Court Enters Default Judgment in "Wang" PT OPCO: Valencia Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users PURE STORAGE: Sued Over Unlawful Data Broker Software Installation QUINSTREET PL: Minor Suit Balks at Unsolicited Text Messages REDHAWK LENDING II: Carrillo Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California ROYAL FURNITURE: Hernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SA POWER: Cudlee Creek Bushfire Class Action Suit Trial Begins SACRAMENTO APARTMENTS: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Hickman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SAMFIN RESOURCES: Farrell Seeks Leave to Conduct Class Cert SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Court Stays Briefing on Class Cert Bid SEER INC: Faces Taylor Suit Alleging Breach of Fiduciary Duty SELECTQUOTE INC: Glancy Prongay Named Lead Counsel in "Pahlkotter" SENIOR HEALTHCARE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due August 31, 2026 SERVICENOW INC: $925,000 Settlement in Rubke Gets Initial Nod SOLINA US: Perales Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages STRONACH GROUP: Manipulates Horse Race Betting Pools, Dickey Says SUNFLOWER LTD: Operates Illegal Online Gambling Games, King Says SWEDISH MATCH: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled ZYN Pouches SYNOPSYS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 30 TAPESTRY INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Merger Suit TELIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Bids For Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Jan. 9 TENET HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Systemic Sexual Assault TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Wins Partial Protecte Order in "Burge" TEXAS: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Ambriz's Federal Takings Claim TEXAS: Bid for Leave to File First Amended Complaint Tossed TEXAS: Seeks to Extend Deadline to File Class Cert Response THARALDSON HOSPITALITY: Bello Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. THEBGB INC: Faces Morales Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages TOWN AND COUNTRY LIFE: Emmett Files Suit in D. Utah TOWN AND COUNTRY LIFE: O'Grady Files Suit in D. Utah TOWN AND COUNTRY LIFE: Stagg Files Suit in D. Utah TOYOTA OF DALLAS: Mitchell Bid to Certify Class Nixed TRADER JOE: Sued Over "100% Juice" Organic Freezer Pops Claims TRADEWATER POINTE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Smith Says TRAVEL TECH MOHS: Ferrusquia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Women Drivers Sue Over Sex Discrimination UNITED AIRLINES: Bids to Dismiss Window Seat Class Action Lawsuit UNITED NATURAL: Sills Bid to File Opposition to Sur-reply Tossed UNITED PARCEL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Cargo Plane Crash UNITED STATES: Gonzalez Sues Over Immigration Enforcement Operation UNITED STATES: Venegas Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes UNITED SURGICAL PARTNERS: Janosky Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas URNER BARRY: Conspires to Fix Prices of Eggs, Class Suit Says VANDE AYURWELL: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia VAUGHAN MCLEAN: DeMetro Seeks Reconsideration of Claim Dismissal VITAL PROTEINS: Mackey Suit Removed to S.D. Florida VIVOS XPOINT: Tenants File Class Action Suit Over Illegal Lease VONS COMPANIES: Class Cert. Filing in Sandoval Due Jan. 14, 2026 WALGREEN PHARMACY: Class Cert. Filing in Parker Due Nov. 9, 2026 WALMART INC: Jacklick Suit Removed to E.D. Washington WALMART INC: Kincannon Suit Removed to W.D. Washington WASHINGTON FINE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 11, 2026 WAYFAIR LLC: Mollins Suit Removed to C.D. California WEST PHARMACEUTICAL: NWT Pension Fund Files Securities Suit WESTERN ALLIANCE: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims WESTFIELD INS.: Englehart Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas WILKES BARRE, PA: Bid for Class Certification Due March 30, 2026 WINCO HOLDINGS: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Ayala Due Sept. 11, 2026 WORLDWIDE TRAVEL: Underpays Licensed Practical Nurses, McCowen Says YAMAHA MOTOR: Fails to Deliver Free E-Bike Battery, Class Suit Says YOUNG MEN'S: Faces Milton Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ZILLOW HOMES: Faces Class Action Over Mortgage Steering Scheme ZOOM VIDEO: Court Rejects Lead Counsel's 18.75% Recovery Award [] Federal Court Greenlights "Pay-to-Pay" Fees Class Suit in W.Va. [] Nashville Garages Face Class Suit Over Illegal Fees, Charges ********* 10 WEST FERRY: 3rd Cir. Revives Lundeen Case Settlement ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled GRAHAM LUNDEEN, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employee v. 10 WEST FERRY STREET OPERATIONS LLC d/b/a LOGAN INN, Appellant, Case No. 24-3375 (3d Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacates the district court's order denying reconsideration of its denial to grant preliminary approval of a class settlement. The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, D.C. Civil No. 2:24-cv-00109, District Judge: Honorable Joshua D. Wolson. The Third Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges L. Felipe Restrepo, Theodore A. McKee, and D. Brooks Smith. Judge Smith wrote the Opinion of the Court of Appeals. According to the Opinion, the appeal presents a question of first impression, which arises at the intersection of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: whether the FLSA's opt-in requirement in Section 216(b) prohibits named plaintiffs in a class action from settling prospective class members' unasserted FLSA claims as part of an opt-out class settlement under Rule 23(b)(3). The District Court answered in the affirmative and, on that ground alone, denied preliminary approval of a negotiated settlement. Because Section 216(b) establishes only the mechanism by which FLSA claims may be litigated, not the conditions under which they may be waived, the Court of Appeals holds that the statute does not forbid such settlements. The Panel, therefore, vacates the District Court's Oct. 30, 2024 order denying reconsideration and remands so that the District Court may conduct the full fairness inquiry required by Rule 23. Defendant-Appellant 10 West Ferry Street Operations LLC ("10 West") owns and operates the Logan Inn, a restaurant and bar in New Hope, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff-Appellee Graham Lundeen worked there as a bartender and server from September 2021 until December 2022. The Inn's bartenders contributed to a tip pool, which was distributed proportionally among them. Lundeen alleges that Bar Manager Randy Charlins, a salaried supervisory employee, also received distributions from that tip pool. In January 2024, Lundeen filed this action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees. He asserted violations of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201–219, and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), 43 P.S. Sections 333.101–333.115, seeking compensatory damages, including lost tip credits, and liquidated damages under Section 216(b) of the FLSA. Both claims rested on Charlins' alleged receipt of tip-pool funds that were intended for bartenders. Lundeen styled the case as a hybrid class/collective action, asserting that his FLSA claim should proceed as a collective action under Section 216(b), and his PMWA claim as a Rule 23(b)(3) class action. In March 2024, the parties stipulated to--and the District Court ordered--conditional certification of an FLSA collective comprising: All individuals who were employed by the Logan Inn as an hourly bartender or server during any week between April 28, 2021, and Jan. 23, 2023, and who contributed to a tip pool that resulted in at least some tips being distributed to Randy Charlins. Because Section 216(b) of the FLSA requires employees to give their consent in writing to become party plaintiffs, Lundeen's counsel mailed notice and "Consent to Join" forms to all putative collective members. The notice stated: "If you do not join the lawsuit, you will not be part of the 'collective' of individuals pursuing their FLSA rights. Thus, you will not be affected by any judgment or settlement resulting from the FLSA claim." Ten employees, including Lundeen, opted in by filing written consents. After some discovery, the parties engaged in a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Scott W. Reid and succeeded in reaching an agreement in June 2024. Lundeen then filed an unopposed motion for conditional certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(3)3 and preliminary approval of a class settlement in August 2024. Logan Inn's maximum total payment under the settlement was $100,000 to be distributed to Lundeen, Lundeen's lawyers, and class members. $60,000 would be distributed pro rata to all class members who had not opted out without requiring those class members to submit a claim form. In addition, the ten individuals who had previously opted into the FLSA collective would share in an additional $5,000 pool. In exchange, class members, excluding those who affirmatively opted out, would release their wage-and-hour claims, as well as any FLSA claims which had arisen during the relevant period. The parties also attached to their motion a proposed "Notice of Settlement" form to be sent to class members. The notice informed class members that by failing to opt out they would "waive the right to recover both wages and liquidated damages under the FLSA." The notice also explained how to opt out or object to the settlement. The District Court convened a hearing on Oct. 1, 2024, not to assess the overall fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement under Rule 23(e)(2), but specifically to address whether class members who had not opted into the FLSA collective action could nonetheless be required by the class action settlement to waive FLSA claims. Eight days later, the District Court denied preliminary approval of the class settlement (Lundeen v. 10 W. Ferry St. Operations LLC, No. 2:24-CV-00109, 2024 WL 4466678, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 9, 2024)). The District Court reasoned that the agreement was "neither fair nor reasonable" because it "require[d] class members who did not opt in to the FLSA collective to release their FLSA claims." 10 West moved for reconsideration, arguing that Section 216(b) imposed no such restriction on releasing FLSA claims. The District Court denied reconsideration on Oct. 30, 2024, but certified the following question for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b): "[W]hether Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act permits a party to obtain the release of unasserted FLSA claims through a Rule 23(b)(3) opt-out class settlement." The Court of Appeals granted Logan Inn's Section 1292(b) petition on Dec. 10, 2024. On appeal, both named parties urge reversal, contending that Section 216(b) does not bar approval of a Rule 23 settlement that includes such releases. The Panel agrees. Judge Smith opines the Panel agree with those courts that have held that Section 216(b) of the FLSA provides only a mechanism for opting into collective litigation. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the language of Section 216(b) does not bar the release of unasserted FLSA claims in a court-approved Rule 23 settlement. Judge Smith notes the District Court inferred from Section 216(b) a supposedly worker-protective principle forbidding such releases. Judge Smith says the lower court's reading is flawed in several respects. Even assuming, arguendo, that Congress intended to protect workers by adopting the opt-in mechanism, that premise does not authorize courts to "add features that will achieve the statutory 'purposes' more effectively." For this reason, the Panel has cautioned against relying on "perceived Congressional intent absent any clear textual or doctrinal basis," citing Knepper v. Rite Aid Corp., 675 F.3d 249, 253 (3d Cir. 2012). In Knepper, the Court of Appeals rejected the notion that Rule 23 class actions asserting state law claims were "inherently incompatible" with the FLSA's opt-in procedure. The Court of Appeals endorsed the use of "hybrid" actions, such as the present one, where an FLSA collective and a Rule 23(b)(3) class proceed side by side in the same case. Judge Smith points out, among other things, that the plain text of Section 216(b) neither compels nor forbids the release of unasserted FLSA claims in a class settlement. In sum, Judge Smith explains, Section 216(b) requires written consent to litigate FLSA claims, but it does not forbid the release of unasserted claims through a Rule 23(b)(3) opt-out settlement. To the extent the District Court rested its denial of preliminary approval on a contrary reading, it committed legal error in doing so. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals holds that the District Court abused its discretion in denying reconsideration. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals vacates the District Court's Oct. 30, 2024 order denying reconsideration and remands for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/mfdtedt from GovInfo.gov. Hannah M. Schroer -- hschroer@barley.com -- David J. Freedman -- dfreedman@barley.com -- BARLEY SNYDER, in Lancaster, PA 17602, Counsel for the Appellant. Peter Winebrake -- pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com -- WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, in Dresher, PA 19025, Counsel for the Appellee. 3M COMPANY: Reynolds Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Daniel Reynolds, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01553 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Oct. 30, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-13219-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Jacob M. Salow, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com jsalow@lightfootlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Sides Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Robert Coleman Sides, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01534 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Oct. 30, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-13224-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Jacob M. Salow, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com jsalow@lightfootlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Smith Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Moreland Nathaniel Smith, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01535 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Oct. 30, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-13223-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com The Defendants are represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Jacob M. Salow, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com jsalow@lightfootlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Toson Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Adam Toson, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01536 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Oct. 30, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-13222-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Jacob M. Salow, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com jsalow@lightfootlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Turley Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Roger Kent Turley, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01541 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Oct. 30, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-13221-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Jacob M. Salow, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com jsalow@lightfootlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Wilkins Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Ervin Wilkins, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01537 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Oct. 30, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-13220-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com The Defendants are represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Jacob M. Salow, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com jsalow@lightfootlaw.com 93 LUDLOW ST: Faces Uddin Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------- JAFOR UDDIN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 93 LUDLOW ST. INC., d/b/a THE DL NYC, ALEKSANDRA DROZD and PAUL SERES, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-09027 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint alleges the Defendants' engagement in illegal deductions from gratuities, failure to pay minimum wage for all hours worked, and failure to provide wage notices/statements. As a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and members of the Class are entitled to an award of damages, including liquidated damages, in amount to be determined at trial, pre- and post-judgment interest, and costs and attorneys' fees, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a barback and bartender at The DL NYC from 2013 until January 2024. 93 Ludlow St. Inc. is a New York limited liability company that owns and operates a club and bar called The DL located in the Lower East Side of Manhattan in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 45 Broadway, Suite 320 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 981-9587 ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Agrees to Settle Securities Suit for $179-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Lovett, writing for Behavioral Health Business, reports that Acadia Healthcare (Nasdaq: ACHC) has agreed to pay $179 million to settle a class action lawsuit that alleged securities fraud. Approximately $30 million of the settlement funds will be derived from insurance proceeds; the remainder will be funded from cash on hand and existing credit lines. The company will report the expense as part of its Q4 but will exclude it from EBITA. The settlement will include a release "with no admission or finding of liability by Acadia or any of its former or current officers." In the lawsuit, investors alleged that in 2017, the company misrepresented its investment in its U.K. business, which it said was a "competitive strength." However, the suite claims that soon after it came to light that the U.K. operations were financially struggling. This led the company to lower its financial guidance for the year and caused its stock prices to plummet by 26%, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit has been in the courts for years and was heading to trial before the settlement was reached. In several pre-trial motions, Acadia moved to exclude evidence from being shown to a jury, including evidence that Acadia maintained a 30-day automatic email deletion policy for its U.S. operations. The motion was denied. Acadia has faced its share of legal challenges over the past few years. In early 2025, Acadia closed a residential and outpatient treatment facility, following allegations of abuse at the facility. The company denies the allegations. Acadia has been subject to ongoing investigations by the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Additionally, the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Health Care launched an information probe into the practices and patient outcomes of three large for-profit methadone clinics, including Acadia. The company has faced several major lawsuits in the past. For example, the company was required to pay $405 million, after a jury ruled against it in a civil lawsuit involving sexual abuse of a minor at a now-closed facility. Later that year, the company agreed to pay $400 million to settle three cases regarding abuse at the now-closed facility. The legal expenses have added up. In the first half of the year, the company's legal expenses totaled $84.5 million. Overall, Acadia has struggled on the market, with the stock falling more than 50% year to date. While the company reported a 4.4% year-over-year revenue growth in Q3, it is taking a measured approach to growth, pausing its de novo development projects. [GN] AEGIS FIDUCIARY: Seeks to File Opposition Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONI R. DUMAS, on behalf of the Lift, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, v. ROBERT E. LESSER, AEGIS FIDUCIARY SERVICES, LLC, DONALD G. HERMAN, KIRK W. SEARS and MARK C. JOHNSON, Case No. 5:23-cv-03979-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Seller Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave to: (1) file an unredacted copy of their Opposition under seal; (2) file an unredacted copy of Exhibit E under seal; and (3) file a redacted copy of the Opposition publicly on the Court's CM/ECF system. Aegis specializes in providing fiduciary services to clients. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ic8U98 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Lars C. Golumbic, Esq. William J. Delany, Esq. Paul J. Rinefierd, Esq. Shai D. Bronshtein, Esq. Theodore A. Van Beek, Esq. Chidera F. Onyeoziri, Esq. GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED 1701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 857-0620 Facsimile: (202) 659-4503 E-mail: lgolumbic@groom.com wdelany@groom.com prinefierd@groom.com sbronshtein@groom.com tvanbeek@groom.com conyeoziri@groom.com AETNA LIFE: Filing for Class Cert in Gordon Due Oct. 9, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gordon et al v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, Case No. 3:24-cv-01447 (D. Conn., Filed Sept 10, 2024), the Hon. Judge Victor A. Bolden entered an order granting motion for extension of time as follows: Parties shall complete productions for outstanding discovery requests and narrow any discovery disputes by Feb. 13, 2026. Parties shall bring any discovery disputes by Feb. 27, 2026. Fact depositions will be completed by April 17, 2026. Parties will designate all trial experts and provide opposing counsel with reports from retained experts on any issues on which they bear the burden of proof by April 24, 2026. Depositions of any such experts will be completed by June 5, 2026 Parties will designate all trial experts and provide opposing counsel with reports from retained experts on any issues on which they do not bear the burden of proof by July 10, 2026. Depositions of such experts will be completed by August 14, 2026. All discovery will be completed by August 14, 2026. Joint request for settlement conference due by Aug. 21, 2026. Motion for class certification due by Oct. 9, 2026. The nature of suit states Civil Rights. Aetna offers health insurance, as well as dental, vision and other plans.[CC] ALAMO INTERMEDIATE: $2.36MM Settlement in "Presson" Has Final OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as James Presson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Alamo Intermediate II Holdings, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-00170-ER, Judge Edgardo Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted final approval to a class action settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice on November 5, 2025. The Court approved a settlement between Plaintiff James Presson and Defendant Alamo Intermediate II Holdings, LLC concerning electronic ticket convenience fees. On August 6, 2025, the Court granted preliminary approval and conditionally certified a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) of all individuals in the United States who purchased electronic tickets to any film screening in any of Defendant's cinemas located in New York State from Defendant's Website from August 29, 2022 to and through January 30, 2024, and were charged Convenience Fees. The Court found that the notice provided to the Settlement Class fully complied with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process. The notice was reasonably calculated under the circumstances to apprise the Settlement Class of the pendency of the action, their right to object to or to exclude themselves from the Settlement Agreement, and their right to appear at the Final Approval Hearing. Seven individuals submitted timely, valid requests for exclusion and were therefore excluded from the Settlement Class. The Court found that Defendant properly and timely notified the appropriate government officials of the Settlement Agreement, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1715. The Court reviewed the substance of Defendant's notice and found that it complied with all applicable requirements. More than ninety days elapsed since Defendant provided notice pursuant to the Act and the Final Approval Hearing. The Court gave final approval to the Settlement Agreement and found that it was fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. The settlement consideration provided under the Settlement Agreement constituted fair value given in exchange for the release of the Released Claims against the Released Parties. The Court found that the consideration to be paid to members of the Settlement Class was reasonable, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members, considering the total value of their claims compared to the disputed factual and legal circumstances of the action, affirmative defenses asserted in the action, and the potential risks and likelihood of success of pursuing litigation on the merits. The complex legal and factual posture of this case, the parties' exchange of relevant information, and the fact that the Settlement was the result of arms-length negotiations between the Parties supported this finding. The Court specifically considered the factors relevant to class action settlement approval, including the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation, the reaction of the class to the settlement, the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed, the risks of establishing liability, the risks of establishing damages, the risks of maintaining the class action through trial, the ability of Defendant to withstand a greater judgment, the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of the best possible recovery, and the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund to a possible recovery in light of all the attendant risks of litigation. The Court found that the Class Representative and Class Counsel adequately represented the Settlement Class for the purposes of litigating this matter and entering into and implementing the Settlement Agreement. The Court directed the Parties to implement the Settlement Agreement according to its terms and provisions and dismissed the action on the merits and with prejudice. The Court adjudged that the payment of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses in the amount of $2,358,333.33 was reasonable in light of the multi-factor test used to evaluate fee awards in the Second Circuit. The Court also adjudged that the payment of an incentive award in the amount of $5,000 to the Class Representative to compensate him for his efforts and commitment on behalf of the Settlement Class was justified under the circumstances of this case. According to the Settlemet "All payments made to Settlement Class Members pursuant to the Settlement Agreement that are not negotiated within one hundred and eighty days of issuance shall be redistributed on a pro rata basis to all Settlement Class Members who claimed their payments. To the extent that a second distribution would be infeasible, any unclaimed funds shall revert to the Legal Aid Society, which the Court approved as an appropriate cy pres recipient." A copy of the settlement is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=01e5Hh from PacerMonitor.com ALIGN INC: Faces Williams Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- DARNELL WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Align, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13289 (N.D. Ill., October 30, 2025) is a civil rights action against Align for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website https://belleze.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On September 1, 2025, the Plaintiff has made an attempt to complete a purchase of a TV stand with a built-in fireplace on Belleze.com after searching online for retailers. However, while navigating the website using his screen reader software, he encountered multiple accessibility issues that hindered his ability to complete a purchase. The product images contained identical, poorly descriptive alternative text that failed to convey useful information about the product features. The Plaintiff alleges that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by him and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Align's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Align, Inc. operates the website that sells home furniture.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (716) 281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law ALLIANCE COAL: Court Approves $15.2MM Settlement in "Branson" ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Randy Branson, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Alliance Coal, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-155-RGJ-HBB (W.D. Ky.), Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Expenses, and Service Awards, and granted the Parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Court conducted a Final Fairness Hearing on October 23, 2025. No Class Members attended, and no objections were filed, submitted to the attorneys, or received by the Court. Defendants are businesses in the natural resources industry. Many of them operate or operated coal mines in Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, and West Virginia. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants acted as joint employers and violated wage and hour laws when they required coal miners to work off-the-clock pre- and post-shift, thereby being denied proper compensation including gap time and overtime wages. Plaintiffs also alleged that Defendants failed to incorporate bonuses paid into miners' regular rate of pay for purposes of overtime. Beginning in 2019, Plaintiffs initially filed six separate actions across the four states where Defendants operated. Plaintiff Randy Branson filed suit on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated in November 2019. In order to seek approval of the global Settlement in a single venue, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint in the Branson case to encompass all the claims asserted in the six related actions. Settlement efforts began in early 2023 after years of lengthy and contentious litigation and discovery in the six separate lawsuits. Prior to the initial mediation in June 2023, the parties conducted extensive discovery, including written discovery, twenty-one depositions, and motion practice. After the parties were unable to reach agreement at that time, they resumed discovery and motion practice, including the production of additional documents and the taking of an additional 82 depositions. To date, the parties have taken 103 depositions in the six underlying actions. In September 2023, the Parties resumed settlement negotiations and ultimately fully executed a settlement agreement on April 22, 2024. On July 10, 2025, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Settlement Agreement provides for a non-reversionary Gross Settlement Amount of $15,205,000 for the Settlement Class, comprised of approximately 6,667 Settlement Class Members. The Gross Settlement Amount will cover: (a) Settlement Payments to Settlement Class Members who do not opt out; (b) Class Counsel's attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the Gross Settlement Amount; (c) reimbursement of Class Counsel's reasonable out-of-pocket costs not to exceed $375,000; (d) service awards of $15,000 to each Named Plaintiff; and (e) Administration Costs. Plaintiffs' Counsel are comprised of Co-Lead counsel Berger Montague PC and the Law Office of Mark N. Foster, PLLC, as well as additional counsel. According to the uncontested declaration of Camille Fundora Rodriguez, the total number of recorded hours spent on this litigation by Berger Montague PC is 12,440.5 hours, and the lodestar amount is $9,192,258.50. Together with hours expended by other counsel, Rodriguez estimates that the total lodestar incurred as of August 11, 2025 is $13,749,995.20. All counsel undertook this litigation on a completely contingent fee basis. Plaintiffs request attorneys' fees of one-third of the Gross Settlement Amount, currently estimated to be $5,068,333.33. The Court applied the percentage-of-the-fund method, which is consistent with the contingency fee arrangement between Plaintiffs and Class Counsel. The Court considered the six Bowling factors governing reasonableness of class action fees and found that application of these factors supports approving the requested award. Plaintiffs estimate that the average recovery for the 6,667 Miners would be over $1,400. Courts within this circuit have found one-third common fund attorney's fee awards to be reasonable in similar complex failure-to-pay-overtime cases. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' request for an attorney fee award of one-third the total Gross Settlement Amount is granted. According to the Court "Plaintiffs seek reimbursement of costs and expenses up to $375,000.00, currently estimating $305,797.91 in costs. The Court found that Plaintiffs have not provided enough information to determine whether the requested reimbursements are reasonable. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' request for costs was denied. Plaintiffs may move again for costs and should provide appropriate documentation. Plaintiffs request Service Awards of $15,000 for each Named Plaintiff. Named Plaintiffs were extensively involved in the litigation. They worked with Class Counsel to prepare complaints and amended pleadings; actively participate in extensive discovery; and review and approve the global settlement. The Court found the proposed service awards reasonable and granted Plaintiffs' request. The Court certified the Settlement Class pursuant to Rule 23. The Court approved the Settlement and found that: (a) the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (b) there was no collusion; (c) the Settlement was the product of informed, arm's-length negotiations; and (d) the record is sufficiently developed. The Court authorized and directed implementation of all terms of the Settlement Agreement. Five persons properly and timely excluded themselves from the Settlement. No person filed an objection. A copy of the Court's settlement dated November 3 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p6ybFm from PacerMonitor.com AMAZON INC: Disabled Workers Sue Over Systematic Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Bratton, writing for Yahoo Finance, reports that a group of Amazon (AMZN) employees has filed a lawsuit against the tech giant, claiming the company systematically discriminated against disabled workers in part due to its alleged use of artificial intelligence. Nine Amazon employees across multiple divisions and states filed a complaint proposing a class action in a federal district court in Seattle on Oct. 20. Their suit claims Amazon unlawfully denies nearly all medical requests to work remotely as the tech giant pursues its controversial return to office policy -- and allegedly uses AI to handle accommodations requests. The suit said the company terminates employees or forces them to take unpaid leave rather than granting their requests for medical accommodations. A judge must certify the lawsuit as a class action for it to move forward. The company filed a response opposing the complaint, arguing the employees' case is "fundamentally flawed." Amazon spokesperson Brad Glasser told Yahoo Finance in an email: "Most of the allegations in this case are simply untrue and intentionally misleading, and we plan to demonstrate that through the legal process." The plaintiffs are represented by New York-based law firm Harman Green PC, which represents about two dozen disabled Amazon employees overall. "We feel very confident about our claims," said attorney Walker Harman Jr. The legal action is one of the latest in a series of employee discrimination lawsuits against Amazon. In late October, New Jersey's attorney general filed a complaint accusing the company of discriminating against disabled and pregnant warehouse workers. In 2022, the New York State Division of Human Rights filed a similar lawsuit, alleging that Amazon's policies force disabled and pregnant warehouse workers to take unpaid leave rather than accommodate them. Many other cases have been filed by workers against the tech giant in the last decade, alleging disability, race, and gender discrimination. Such cases have yielded mixed outcomes -- some resulting in wins by workers and settlements, others in victories for Amazon. Amazon is one of the largest US employers, with more than 1.5 million employees. Last week it announced thousands of layoffs as it aggressively invests in AI. The employees participating in the latest suit -- which would be ruled on as a class action by Judge John Chun in the Western District of Washington, should it go forward -- range from warehouse workers to software engineers. Nearly all of the workers allege Amazon failed to grant medical accommodations necessary to their health and safety. The complaint said that Amazon's requirement that employees use its "A to Z" app when requesting accommodations created technical issues and resulted in significant delays. Ashley Cook, an Amazon cloud engineer and a military veteran from Texas with uterine fibroids, alleges in the complaint that Amazon unlawfully placed her on unpaid leave against her will after ignoring her requests in its A to Z app to work remotely as a means of managing her condition. Another plaintiff, Amy Rooker, an investment manager for Amazon's cloud division, claims she suffered serious injuries from a car accident, which caused chronic pain that limited her ability to commute to work safely. Rooker's remote work accommodation request was denied, the company refused her request to appeal the denial, and she was terminated from her position, according to the complaint. Meanwhile, warehouse worker David Ottenweller alleges he was terminated after he was hospitalized as a result of his mental health disability. Another warehouse worker, Michelle Grissom, said she was put on unpaid leave and ultimately terminated after requesting an accommodation for her seizure symptoms. The lawsuit alleges that the problems faced by plaintiffs are likely more widespread, potentially "representative of tens of thousands of current and former employees of Amazon." According to an internal document provided to Yahoo Finance by a group of Amazon workers called Disabled Employees United, which was verified by Amazon, the company receives a slew of accommodation requests -- roughly 725 daily, as of 2024. On an annual basis, the lawsuit estimates Amazon's accommodation requests could tally as high as 255,000 per year. Amazon declined to disclose how many requests it receives or how many are granted. More discrimination lawsuits from disabled employees could be coming: Jasno Dolmer, a spokesperson for Disabled Employees United -- which includes 662 Amazon disabled corporate employees who are working to form a union -- said nearly all of the group's members are lawyering up to fight the company's handling of accommodation requests. So far, at least 140 members of Disabled Employees United have been granted the right to sue the company by the US Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC) Commission -- a key procedural step that allows them to take their case to court -- according to a poll conducted by the group. The EEOC did not respond to a request to confirm that figure. Amazon told Yahoo Finance it is testing the use of AI for administrative tasks related to accommodations requests but not for making decisions on cases. The tech giant has increasingly looked to use AI internally as it invests hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure to power its AI products. CEO Andy Jassy said in June that the company would reduce its workforce as it implements AI, and the company recently announced it would cut 14,000 jobs. Using automation to handle accommodation requests for disabled workers is controversial. Former EEOC Chair Charlotte Burrows told Yahoo Finance, "More and more employees are in a situation where they are looking to vindicate their rights under the law and cannot get relief because they're in an automated process that doesn't allow them to appeal to a person." "When you have a disability claim . . . you have a right to an interactive process, . . . They [employers] have to engage." In other words, the Americans With Disabilities Act requires employers to engage in good-faith, back-and-forth discussions -- an interactive process -- with an employee who has requested a reasonable accommodation for a disability. The October lawsuit claims Amazon prevents employees from "notifying others about their rights under the law," saying that Amazon deleted Slack messages from one of its plaintiffs who shared resources for disabled employees if they felt their rights had been violated. Amazon has multiple Slack channels for employees with disabilities that include thousands of members, according to a review of Slack channels seen by Yahoo Finance. Dolmer said the issue is having a "chilling effect" and that some members of his group have received warnings of disciplinary action for posting such messages in Slack. Amazon said the messages violate its solicitation policy. Glasser, Amazon's spokesperson, told Yahoo Finance: "We're committed to supporting our employees by providing accommodations that meet their individual needs and the needs of the business." [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Dec. 19 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER BROWN, et al., v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00965-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order regarding class certification briefing schedule: 1. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their class certification motion is extended to Dec. 19, 2025. 2. The deadline for Amazon to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion, and file any Daubert motions, is April 3, 2026. 3. The deadline for the Plaintiffs' reply brief, and any Daubert motions and oppositions, is June 3, 2026. 4. The deadline for Amazon's Daubert reply briefs and oppositions is Aug. 11, 2026. 5. The deadline for the Plaintiffs' Daubert reply briefs is Oct. 12, 2026. Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=osaQRU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Kelly Fan, Esq. Anne F. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com annej@hbsslaw.com kellyf@hbsslaw.com - and - Zina G. Bash, Esq. Jessica Beringer, Esq. Shane Kelly, Esq. Alex Dravillas, Esq. Roseann Romano, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500 Austin, TX, 78701 Telephone: (512) 690-0990 E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com ajd@kellerpostman.com roseann.romano@kellerpostman.com - and - Steig D. Olson, Esq. David D. LeRay, Esq. Nic V. Siebert, Esq. Maxwell P. Deabler-Meadows, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1109 First Avenue, Suite 210 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 905-7000 E-mail: steigolson@quinnemanuel.com davidleray@quinnemanuel.com nicolassiebert@quinnemanuel.com maxmeadows@quinnemanuel.com adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com The Defendant is represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Meredith Dearborn, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 223-7420 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com ksmith@paulweiss.com mgoodman@paulweiss.com mdearborn@paulweiss.com AMERISAVE MORTGAGE: Faces Class Suit Over Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Erin Wilson filed a class action lawsuit against AmeriSave Mortgage Corp. Why: Wilson claims AmeriSave violated federal and Georgia state law by making telemarketing calls to phone numbers listed on the National Do Not Call (DNC) Registry. Where: The AmeriSave class action lawsuit was filed in Georgia federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges AmeriSave Mortgage made unsolicited telemarketing calls to phone numbers listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. Plaintiff Erin Wilson claims AmeriSave violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and Georgia’s Telephone Solicitations Act (GTSA) by making the calls. Consumers can collect up to $1,500 per violating call under the TCPA. "Plaintiff brings this action to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the TCPA, alleging that AmeriSave Mortgage Corporation made telemarketing calls to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, including her own," the AmeriSave class action lawsuit says. Wilson wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who received similar calls from AmeriSave, in addition to a Georgia subclass of consumers who received the calls. Wilson argues the TCPA and GTSA were both enacted to protect consumers from unwanted telemarketing calls and provide a private right of action to consumers who receive them. Wilson claims she received two unsolicited telemarketing calls from AmeriSave in October 2025, one of which she answered and spoke with an agent who said they were calling on behalf of the company to solicit its services via a "personalized quote." "Plaintiff made no such request," the AmeriSave class action says. Wilson argues she informed the agent that they had the wrong number and requested that they not call her again. "Plaintiff and all members of the class defined have been harmed by the acts of Defendant because their privacy has been violated and they were subjected to annoying and harassing calls that constitute a nuisance," the AmeriSave class action lawsuit says. Wilson claims AmeriSave is guilty of negligent, willful or knowing violations of the TCPA and GTSA and is demanding a jury trial. She requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of statutory damages for herself and all class members. Meanwhile, Credit One Bank faced a class action lawsuit accusing the company of violating federal and state laws by making harassing phone calls to consumers in an effort to collect debts. The plaintiff is represented by Valerie Chinn of Chinn Law Firm LLC and Anthony I. Paronich of Paronich Law P.C. The AmeriSave class action lawsuit is Wilson v. AmeriSave Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-06218-ELR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. [GN] AT CORPORATION: Maurer Sues Over Inaccessible Property ------------------------------------------------------ Dennis Maurer, and others similarly situated v. AT CORPORATION, a New Jersey Corporation, & IHOP PROPERTY LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-16978 (D.N.J., Oct. 28, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD"). The Plaintiff continues to encounter architectural barriers at many of the places that he visits. Seemingly trivial architectural features such as parking spaces, curb ramps, and door handles are taken for granted by the non-disabled but, when improperly designed or implemented, can be dangerous to those in wheelchairs. The Plaintiff has visited the Property many times over the years his last visit to the Property occurred on or about August 23, 2025. The Plaintiff visited the Property as a bone fide patron with the intent to avail himself of the goods and services offered to the public within; however, he found it was rife with violations of the ADA – both in architecture and in policy. The ADA has been law for over 30 years and the Property remains non-compliant. Thus, the Plaintiff has actual notice and reasonable grounds to believe that she will continue to be subjected to discrimination by the Defendants, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a mobility impaired persons. The Defendants' property/place of public accommodation--a restaurant known as IHOP.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N. East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Phone: (609) 319-5399 Email: js@shadingerlaw.com AUTOZONE INC: Shapllo Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SHAPLLO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. AUTOZONE, INC., Case No. 9:25-cv-80770-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting amended motion for class certification. The Plaintiff proposes the following classes for certification: Nationwide Class: "All citizens of the United States who, during the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased Defendant's Steering Wheel Covers advertised as genuine leather." Florida Subclass: "All citizens of the State of Florida who, during the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased the Defendant's Steering Wheel Cover advertised as genuine leather." The description of "Genuine Leather" is prominently displayed on the packaging and nowhere on the packaging does it state the Product is made of anything else, which misleads the least sophisticated consumer. Indeed, the Oxford Advanced American Dictionary defines the term "genuine" as "real;" exactly what it appears to be; not artificial," exactly what the Steering Wheel Cover's packaging connotes deceptively as the product is in fact artificial "faux" leather. The Plaintiff submits that the proposed Class meets all Rule 23 requirements and requests that this Court certify the Nationwide Class and Florida Subclass, appoint Plaintiff as Class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's counsel as counsel for the Class. The Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on May 13, 2025, in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. On June 18, 2025, the Defendant timely removed this action, contending that complete diversity existed and the amount in controversy was met. On July 11, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. [D.E. 6]. Plaintiff filed his Amended Class Action Complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 31, 2025. On Aug. 14, 2025, Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint, to which the Plaintiff filed an Opposition on Sept. 4, 2025. The Defendant filed a Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition on Sept. 11, 2025. AutoZone is an American retailer of aftermarket automotive parts and accessories. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AKoyfA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Hirsch, Esq. SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP, PLLC 6810 N. State Road 7 Coconut Creek, FL 33073 Telephone: (561) 569-6283 E-mail: scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street NE Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com AVANTOR INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Set December 29 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Avantor, Inc. ("Avantor" or the "Company") (NYSE: AVTR) and reminds investors of the December 29, 2025 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com. As detailed below, the complaint alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) Avantor's competitive positioning was weaker than Defendants had publicly represented; (2) Avantor was experiencing negative effects from increased competition; and (3) as a result, Defendants' representations about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. During the Class Period, Defendants misled investors by falsely touting the Company's competitive positioning and downplaying the effects of increased competition. For example, during an earnings call on July 26, 2024, in response to an analyst's question about whether Avantor was losing share to a competitor, Defendant Michael Stubblefield, then the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, assured investors that Avantor's "lab business stacks up well against every number that certainly that we've seen," that "we continue to enhance our position," and that "we're really confident in our value proposition and our competitive position." Likewise, Defendants repeatedly pointed to Avantor's purported competitive advantages, such as its digital capabilities, as evidence that the Company would continue to enjoy strong competitive positioning. Investors began to learn the truth about the effects of increased competition on Avantor's business on April 25, 2025, when the Company reported disappointing first quarter 2025 financial results, cut its guidance for 2025, and announced that Defendant Stubblefield would be stepping down from his roles as President and Chief Executive Officer. Defendants attributed Avantor's weak performance and outlook to "the impact of increased competitive intensity." On this news, the price of Avantor common stock declined $2.57 per share, or more than 16.5%, from a close of $15.50 per share on April 24, 2025, to close at $12.93 per share on April 25, 2025 Then, on August 1, 2025, the Company reported disappointing second quarter 2025 financial results, including a year-over-year decrease in net sales, and further reduced the Company's 2025 guidance—now projecting organic revenue growth of -2% to 0%. Defendants again attributed Avantor's poor results and outlook to "increased competitive intensity," and further admitted that the Company did not expect the competitive environment to materially improve in the remainder of 2025 and weak performance would therefore likely persist. In response to this news, the price of Avantor common stock declined $2.08 per share, or more than 15%, from a close of $13.44 per share on July 31, 2025, to close at $11.36 per share on August 1, 2025. Then, on October 29, 2025, the Company reported weak third quarter 2025 financial results, including -5% organic revenue growth (below the guidance Defendants had provided in August), and a net loss of $712 million, which Defendants primarily attributed to a non-cash goodwill impairment charge of $785 million. Defendants revealed that the impairment charge was necessary due in part to "competitive pressures" that had "meaningfully impacted" the Company's margins, and further admitted that the Company had lost several large accounts On this news, the price of Avantor common stock declined $3.50 per share, or more than 23%, from a close of $15.08 per share on October 28, 2025, to close at $11.58 per share on October 29, 2025. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Avantor's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. To learn more about the Avantor class action, go to www.faruqilaw.com/AVTR or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). [GN] AX BEAUTY: Underfills Body Cream Products, Gonzales Says -------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY GONZALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AX BEAUTY BRANDS GLOBAL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, d/b/a NATUREWELL, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-10383 (C.D. Cal., October 28, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendant over its false, unfair, deceptive, unlawful, and misleading business practices. The Defendant is the owner, manufacturer, and distributor of a 12-ounce Beamy Brightening Body Cream. To increase profits at the expense of consumers and fair competition, the Defendant deceptively sells its Product in oversized containers, asserts the complaint. The Defendant dupes unsuspecting customers to pay premium prices for empty space, it adds. According to the complaint, the Defendant markets the Product in a systematically misleading manner by representing them as adequately filled when, in fact they contain an unlawful amount of empty-space or "slack-fill". The Plaintiff would not have paid a premium price for the Product, had she known that the size of the container and product label were false and misleading. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, damages, and punitive damages under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The Plaintiff is a California consumer who purchased a bottle of Defendant's Product for personal use from Target. Defendant AX Beauty Brands Global, LLC doing business as NatureWell, manufactures and sells popular skincare products throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com B2SERVICES OU: Luckart Balks at Illegal Online Sweepstakes Casinos ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES LUCKART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. B2SERVICES OU; and B-TWO OPERATIONS LTD., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00170 (D. Utah, November 2, 2025) seeks to redress Defendants' alleged widespread violations of Utah's Gambling Act. Defendants B2Services OU and B-Two Operations Ltd. own, operate, and receive significant revenue from their online "sweepstakes" casinos available at www.mcluck.com, www.jackpota.com, www.spinblitz.com, www.hellomillions.com, www.megabonanza.com, and www.playfame.com, where they offer casino-style table games and slots to anyone willing to spend real money wagering on them (the "B2 Gambling Platform"). While Defendants advertise and promote the B2 Gambling Platform to persons in Utah as a legitimate online business, giving it an aura of legitimacy and legality to Plaintiff and Class members, the B2 Gambling Platform is actually a dangerous and plainly unlawful gambling enterprise, says the suit. The alleged scheme is made as Defendants sell digital "coins" to consumers on the B2 Gambling Platform and then immediately accept those coins back (from by the consumers who purchased them) as wagers on the outcomes of the various casino-style games of chance offered on the B2 Gambling Platform. Consumers who purchase and then wager "coins" on the B2 Gambling Platform do so in the hopes of winning more "coins," which can be used to place more wagers and, in some instances, are redeemable for cash. The Plaintiff and numerous other Utah residents have lost significant sums of their hard-earned money placing wagers on the B2 Gambling Platform, and Defendants have in turn reaped enormous profits from the losses these people have sustained, the suit alleges. B2Services OU is a private company organized and existing under the laws of Estonia, with a place of business in Estonia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot O. Jackson, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 E-mail: ejackson@hedinllp.com - and - David W. Scofield, Esq. PETERS ❘ SCOFIELD A Professional Corporation 7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, UT 84093-6160 Telephone: (801) 322-2002 E-mail: dws@psplawyers.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 140 Broadway, Fl 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Workers' Unpaid PC Boot Up Time ---------------------------------------------------------------- Luke James, writing for Toms Hardware, reports that Bank of America is facing a proposed class and collective action lawsuit that accuses the company of failing to pay hundreds of hourly workers for time spent booting their computers, logging in, and launching required software before officially starting their shifts. The complaint, filed by former employee Tava Martin, focuses on a routine familiar to many in the modern workplace: unlocking encrypted drives, signing in through multi-factor authentication, connecting to a VPN, and launching business-critical applications. According to the filing, these tasks could take up to 30 minutes each day and were required before employees could access the company's timekeeping system to clock in. This could take even longer if technical problems occurred, and during unpaid lunch breaks, many systems would automatically disconnect, forcing employees to repeat parts of this protracted login process, adding approximately three to five minutes of unpaid time on most days. At the end of each shift, workers had to log out of all programs and securely close down their workstations, adding another two to three minutes. The lawsuit leans on long-standing guidance from the U.S. Department of Labor, which in 2008 clarified that such computer start-up tasks could be considered compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) if it was integral to the employees' activities. Specifically, the agency treated booting and preparing workstations as part of a worker's "first principal activity" if those tasks are necessary to perform the job. In this case, the plaintiff argues that launching the company's digital workspace was a prerequisite for fulfilling the analyst role and that Bank of America should have compensated that time. Martin's legal team is seeking back pay and damages for a class they estimate includes "hundreds" of similarly situated business analysts and support staff who were required to use BofA's remote access tools before logging work hours. The plaintiffs are reportedly pursuing both class and collective action status, which would allow them to represent a broader group of affected employees across states. Recent court rulings on similar cases have varied. In some cases, pre-login time has been found non-compensable, especially when workers were able to perform other duties while their computers booted. Others have sided with employees where specific boot-up sequences were clearly tied to core job functions and could not be bypassed. At the time of writing, Bank of America has not responded publicly to the filing. The case, Martin v. Bank of America, was filed in federal court on October 23 and remains at the preliminary stage. [GN] BANKERS TRUST: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Overdraft Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Bankers Trust Company has agreed to pay more than $564,000 to settle a class action lawsuit over its alleged practice of charging excessive overdraft fees on debit card transactions between December 2016 and April 2023. The $564,283.26 Bankers Trust Company class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on August 12, 2025 and covers two groups of consumers who received notice about the settlement via email or postcard. The class action settlement covers any consumer who was charged an overdraft fee on a debit card transaction when there were sufficient funds available in their account between December 1, 2016 and April 3, 2023, and any consumer who was charged an overdraft fee on a one-time debit card or ATM transaction between December 1, 2022 and April 3, 2023. The court-approved website for the Bankers Trust Company class action settlement can be found at https://BTSettlement.com/. Bankers Trust settlement class members do not need to do anything to receive benefits from the deal, as they are automatically processed within the financial institution's systems. Consumers who believe they may be a class member but did not receive a settlement notice should contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and await further instructions. Per the settlement website, each class member will be eligible to receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment from the settlement fund, after the deduction of settlement administration expenses, attorney costs and fees, and service awards. The amount each class member may receive will be calculated based on the total amount of challenged fees they paid, divided by the total amount of fees paid by all class members, then multiplied by the remaining amount in the net settlement fund. Reimbursement will be automatically distributed to cash members via check, which must be cashed within 120 days after the date of issuance before they expire. In addition to the initial $500,000 settlement fund, Bankers Trust Company has also agreed to pay an additional $14,283.68 to forgive and charge off any uncollected overdraft fees from class member accounts during the aforementioned class periods. According to the settlement website, the deadline to ask to be excluded from or object to the Bankers Trust Company class action settlement is November 17, 2025. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Bankers Trust Company settlement at a hearing on December 17, 2025. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The class action lawsuit alleged that Bankers Trust Company improperly assessed certain overdraft fees on debit card transactions that were authorized due to a consumer's account having a sufficient balance to cover the amount being charged. The case alleged that Bankers Trust also charged improper overdraft fees on one-time debit card transactions and ATM transactions, in breach of its customer contracts and in violation of the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act. [GN] BCI ACRYLIC: Hoffman TCPA Suit Transferred to W.D. Wash. -------------------------------------------------------- Lathrop GPM, writing for JDSupra, reports that a federal court in Illinois recently transferred a Washington resident's putative class action to Washington, finding the Northern District of Illinois lacked jurisdiction over a Washington-based defendant, Northwest Bath Specialists, LLC d/b/a Bath Planet of Seattle ("BP Seattle"), even though BP Seattle was a contracted dealer for Illinois-based BCI Acrylic, LLC d/b/a Bath Planet. Hoffman v. BCI Acrylic, LLC, 2025 WL 2896821 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 10, 2025). Mark Hoffman, a Washington resident, filed a putative class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and Washington consumer protection laws by the Illinois-headquartered manufacturer of bathtubs and showers as well as its Washington-based seller. Hoffman alleged that his number was listed on the National Do Not Call Registry and that he received at least thirty-seven calls and texts from a Washington number affiliated with Bath Planet. The calls originated from BP Seattle in Washington. BP Seattle moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to transfer venue to the Western District of Washington. The court granted BP Seattle's motions and transferred the case. The court held that Hoffman was neither affiliated nor in contract with BP Seattle and therefore could not enforce the Illinois forum selection clause in the dealership agreement between Bath Planet and BP Seattle. Next, the court held that TCPA claims are considered intentional torts for jurisdictional purposes and that the conduct underlying the claims must be purposefully directed at Illinois for the court to maintain jurisdiction. The court found Hoffman's allegations that BP Seattle purchased products from Bath Planet in Illinois insufficient to establish jurisdiction, and Hoffman did not otherwise allege any conduct by BP Seattle directed towards Illinois. To avoid bifurcating the case and for efficiency reasons, the court held that transfer was an appropriate alternative to dismissal. The court reasoned that Washington could exercise jurisdiction over Bath Planet because the alleged agency relationship between BP Seattle and Bath Planet provides a plausible basis for Bath Planet's liability. The court additionally found that transfer was warranted under a forum non conveniens analysis because Washington was convenient to BP Seattle's witnesses, Washington was "presumably more convenient to Hoffman and putative class members," and the community of Washington has the strongest interest in enforcing its state consumer protection laws. Accordingly, the court granted the motion and transferred the entire action to the Western District of Washington. [GN] BEYOND MEAT: Bleichmar Investigates Potential Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces an investigation into Beyond Meat, Inc. (NASDAQ: BYND) for potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Beyond Meat, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/beyond-meat-inc-class-action-investigation. Why Is Beyond Meat Being Investigated for Securities Fraud? Beyond Meat makes plant-based meat alternatives. In late 2023, the company went through a global operations review and depreciated certain long-lived assets. Beyond Meat said that these assets were recorded in assets held for sale in its consolidated balance sheet at the lower of their carrying value or fair value less costs to sell, and that there were no impairments. BFA is investigating whether Beyond Meat inflated the value of certain long-lived assets. Why Did Beyond Meat's Stock Drop? On October 24, 2025, Beyond Meat announced that it "expects to record a non-cash impairment charge for the three months ended September 27, 2025, related to certain of its long-lived assets," which it "expected to be material." On this news, the price of Beyond Meat stock dropped roughly 23%, from $2.84 per share on October 23, 2025 to $2.185 per share on October 24, 2025. Then, on November 3, 2025, the company delayed its earnings announcement for 3Q 25 as it needed more time to complete the impairment review. This news caused Beyond Meat stock to decline substantially during the trading day on November 3, 2025. Visit link for more information: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/beyond-meat-inc-class-action-investigation. What Can You Do? If you invested in Beyond Meat you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm. All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses. Submit your information by visiting: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases/beyond-meat-inc-class-action-investigation Or contact: Ross Shikowitz ross@bfalaw.com (212) 789-3619 Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP? BFA is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It has been named a top plaintiff law firm by Chambers USA, The Legal 500, and ISS SCAS, and its attorneys have been named "Elite Trial Lawyers" by the National Law Journal, among the top "500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers" by Lawdragon, "Titans of the Plaintiffs' Bar" by Law360 and "SuperLawyers" by Thomson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. [GN] BJH HOLDING: Faces Wade Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------- TIARA WADE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BJH HOLDING CORP and JACK'S FAMILY RESTAURANTS, LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09018 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendants with sensitive personally identifiable information including names and Social Security numbers that was impacted in a data breach that Defendants publicly disclosed on October 21, 2025. According to the complaint, the data breach was a direct result of Defendants' failure to implement an information security program designed to: (a) to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer information; (b) to protect against anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of that information; and (c) to protect against unauthorized access to that information that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer. Through this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals whose PII was accessed during the data breach. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Jack's at a location in Alabama. BJH is a holding corporation and the parent company of Jack's. Jack's is a quick service chain restaurant that has over 250 locations in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Court Junks Bid to Extend Class Cert Sched ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM MARK CUMALANDER, v. BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF TENNESSEE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00176-TRM-CHS (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Travis R. McDonough entered an order denying the parties' motion for enlargement of class-certification scheduling order deadlines. The action was commenced by the named Plaintiff in July 2023 and the Defendant waived service on Aug. 10, 2023. The Court has already provided the parties a four-month extension to complete class discovery. Under the current scheduling order, all discovery related to class certification issues shall be completed by Jan. 9, 2026. The parties have had over two years to depose the named plaintiff and have several months left until discovery closes. The parties are free to conduct discovery beyond the deadlines by agreement, but the amended class certification scheduling order remains the operative schedule. BlueCross is a health benefit plan company in Tennessee. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bqcDsG at no extra charge.[CC] BONAFIDE HEALTH: Migliaccio Sues Over Unlawful Interception ----------------------------------------------------------- Myrna Migliaccio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BONAFIDE HEALTH, LLC, Case No. 7:25-cv-08954 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 28, 2025), is brought on behalf of all California residents who completed the quiz or purchased a product through the website www.hellobonafide.com/ (the "Website") and whose electronic communications were intercepted or recorded by advertising technology provided by Attentive Mobile, Inc. and Meta Platforms, Inc. ("Facebook") (collectively, the "Third Parties"), in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). Consumers use Defendant's Website to seek treatment to improve their menopausal symptoms. But what consumers don't know is that the intimate details about their symptoms and supplement purchases are not private--they are exploited by Defendant and the Third Parties. Specifically, Defendant enables the Third Parties to contemporaneously capture Plaintiff's and class members' electronic communications with the Website as they seek menopausal supplements to abate their symptoms. The nature of the Third Parties' agreements with Defendant are such that Defendant "aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires" to permit the Third Parties to read, attempt to read, learn, and/or use the confidential communications of Website visitors without prior consent, thus violating the CIPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the product "Revaree" through the Website. Bonafide is a pharmaceutical manufacturing company offering consumers access to "hormone-free, non-prescription solutions" to "safe, effective relief from menopause symptoms."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Phone: (914) 874-0710 Fax: (914) 206-3656 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: aleslie@bursor.com BOWTECH INC: Langley Price-Fixing Suit Transferred to D. Colo. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as JONATHAN LANGLEY and MOHAMMED HUSSAIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BOWTECH INC.; HOYT ARCHERY, INC.; MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.; PRECISION SHOOTING EQUIPMENT, INC.; BPS DIRECT, LLC d/b/a BASS PRO SHOPS; CABELA'S LLC; DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.; JAY'S SPORTING GOODS, INC d/b/a JAY'S SPORTING GOODS; KINSEY'S OUTDOORS, INC.; LANCASTER ARCHERY SUPPLY, INC.; and ARCHERY TRADE ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-03190, was transferred from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on October 30, 2025. The Clerk of Court for the District of Colorado assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03449-PAB-TPO to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs bring this suit against Defendants for their unlawful contract, combination, or conspiracy to fix the prices of archery products sold throughout the United States in violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. BowTech Inc. manufactures and distributes compound bows and archery equipment.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David M. Cialkowski, Esq. Ian F. McFarland, Esq. Zachary J. Freese, Esq. Giselle M. Webber, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP 1100 IDS Center 80 S. 8th St. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com ian.mcfarland@zimmreed.com zachary.freese@zimmreed.com giselle.webbber@zimmreed.com The Defendants are represented by: Christopher S. Yates, Esq. Brendan A. McShane, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 395−8157 Facsimile: (415) 395−8095 E-mail: chris.yates@lw.com brendan.mcshane@lw.com - and - Matthew James, Esq. Anna M. Rathbun, Esq. PIEHL LATHAM & WATKINS 555 Eleventh St NW Ste 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637−2154 E-mail: matthew.piehl@lw.com anna.rathbun@lw.com C.R. PHARMACY: $1.3MM Data Breach Suit Settlement Gets Prelim OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that C.R. Pharmacy Services, which does business as CarePro Health Services, is set to pay a $1,300,000 settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit over a November 2023 data breach. The CarePro Health Services class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on September 4, 2025 and covers approximately 151,499 individuals whose personal information was potentially compromised in the CarePro data breach. The court-approved website for the CarePro class action settlement can be found at https://www.CareProClassAction.com/. CarePro settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form have several options for reimbursement. Per the settlement website, those who submit documented proof of out-of-pocket expenses resulting from the November 2023 data breach are eligible to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $5,000. Reimbursable expenses may include those related to credit monitoring costs, identity theft costs, bank fees, and credit repair services, the settlement site says. In lieu of or in addition to a documented-loss payment, class members may submit a claim form to receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment of approximately $100. Per settlement documents, the final amount of each eligible class member's cash payout will depend on the total number of valid claims that are filed and how much money remains in the settlement fund after deducting settlement administration expenses, attorney costs and fees, and any service awards from the fund. Eligible class members have the option to choose to receive their class action settlement payout via cash or electronic payment, the settlement website shares. Those who elect to receive their payment as a check will have 90 days to cash it after the date of issuance before the check becomes void. In addition to the monetary reimbursement options, eligible settlement class members may also submit a claim to receive two free years of three-bureau credit monitoring services. To submit a CarePro Health Services settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. Consumers who believe they may be a class member but did not receive a class action settlement notice can contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and receive their login ID. Alternatively, a class member can download a PDF copy of the claim form to print, fill out, and return by mail to the address listed near the top of the form. CarePro settlement claim forms must be submitted online or by mail by December 3, 2025. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the CarePro settlement at a hearing on January 23, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to consumers only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The CarePro Health Services class action lawsuit alleged that an unauthorized actor gained access to the healthcare provider's online network and potentially compromised patient data. Per the court documents, the private information impacted by the breach included, but was not limited to, names, contact information, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers and financial information. [GN] CAMPBELL'S COMPANY: Faces Class Suit Over Falsely Marketed Chips ---------------------------------------------------------------- The South Shore Press reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against the Campbell's Company, accusing it of misleading consumers with false advertising claims about its snack products. According to the lawsuit filed by plaintiff Rozaliya Ripa, The Campbell's Company falsely marketed its Cape Cod Kettle Cooked Potato Chips as containing "No Artificial Colors, Flavors or Preservatives." Ripa asserts that the chips contain synthetic citric acid, contradicting the company's labeling. She claims she purchased the product multiple times, believing it contained only natural ingredients. According to the complaint, the labeling exploited consumer preferences for natural foods and misled buyers into paying a premium price. The lawsuit alleges violations of New York General Business Law Secs. 349 and 350, as well as breach of express warranty. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages exceeding $5 million, injunctive relief, restitution, punitive damages, and attorney fees. The action seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased the chips based on the disputed labeling. The plaintiff is represented by attorney Joshua D. Arisohn of Arisohn LLC. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Case No. 1:25-cv-05921. [GN] CAMPBELL'S COMPANY: Sued Over Cape Cod Potato Chips' False Ads -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Rozaliya Ripa is suing The Campbell's Company. Why: Ripa claims Campbell's falsely advertises its Cape Cod potato chips as free from artificial colors, flavors and preservatives. Where: The Campbell's class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. A new class action lawsuit claims Campbell's falsely advertises that its Cape Cod potato chips contain no artificial colors, flavors or preservatives. Plaintiff Rozaliya Ripa filed the class action lawsuit against Campbell's on Oct. 23 in New York federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, Campbell's misleads consumers by labeling its Cape Cod Kettle Cooked Potato Chips as containing "No Artificial Colors, Flavors or Preservatives," even though the products actually contain synthetic citric acid. Ripa says Campbell's uses this claim to capitalize on consumers' preference for natural foods, leading them to believe the chips are free from synthetic ingredients. Campbell's chips contain synthetic citric acid, lawsuit says The complaint alleges that Campbell's chips contain synthetic citric acid, which is used as a flavoring agent and preservative. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has noted that natural citric acid is "no longer commercially available," making synthetic citric acid the only option for packaged foods, the lawsuit says. Ripa argues that the synthetic citric acid in the chips is produced using industrial chemicals and processes, which contradicts Campbell's claim of no artificial ingredients. The lawsuit further alleges that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has previously warned companies against labeling products containing citric acid as "natural." Ripa claims that she and other consumers were misled by Campbell's advertising and would not have purchased the chips, or would have paid less for them, had they known the truth about the ingredients. She is looking to represent anyone in the United States who bought the chips for personal, family or household use. She is suing for violations of New York General Business Law and for breach of express warranty and is seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. In a separate class action lawsuit, another New York consumer is suing Campbell's over similar allegations that it falsely advertised its Cape Cod brand potato chips as free of artificial preservatives. The plaintiff is represented by Joshua D. Arisohn of Arisohn LLC. The Cape Cod potato chips class action lawsuit is Ripa v. The Campbell's Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-05921, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. [GN] CAPITAL ONE: Bid for Leave to File Class Docs Under Seal Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AZLYNNE HOARD and CHIQUITA PLENTY, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Case No. 3:24-cv-01133-JLS-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sammartino entered an order denying motions to seal: (1) Denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file documents under seal regarding the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; (2) Denying the Defendant's motion for leave to file documents under seal regarding the defendant's opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; (3) Denying the Defendant's motion for leave to file documents under seal regarding the Defendant's motion to exclude the Plaintiffs' expert Prof. Ronald J. Mann; and (4) Denying the Defendant's motion for leave to file documents under seal regarding the Defendant's motion to strike the Plaintiffs' deposition errata. Capital operates as a bank. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mTMUaQ at no extra charge.[CC] CARMAX INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 2 ---------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of CarMax, Inc. (NYSE: KMX) between June 20, 2025 and November 5, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Class Period was expanded to include more investors. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 2, 2026 in the securities class action first filed by the Firm. SO WHAT: If you purchased CarMax securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the CarMax class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=47077 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 2, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Defendants recklessly overstated CarMax's growth prospects when, in reality, its earlier growth in the 2026 fiscal year was a temporary benefit from customers buying cars due to speculation regarding tariffs; and (2) as a result, defendants' statements about CarMax's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the CarMax class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=47077 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] CARTICA ACQUISITION: M&A Probes Merger With Nidar Infrastructure ---------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City is investigating: -- Cartica Acquisition Corp. (OTCMKTS: CRTAF) related to its merger with Nidar Infrastructure Ltd., in which the pre-transaction equity value of Nidar implied by the proposed transaction's terms is approximately $2.75 billion. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for November 28, 2025. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/cartica-acquisition-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Akero Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: AKRO) related to its sale to Novo Nordisk A/S. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Akero shareholders will receive $54.00 per share in cash, and a non-transferable contingent value right entitling its holder to receive a cash payment of $6.00 per share upon full U.S. regulatory approval of efruxifermin by June 30, 2031. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for December 2, 2025. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/akero-therapeutics-inc/ https://monteverdelaw.com/case/premier-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Adverum Biotechnologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: NIC) related to its sale to Eli Lilly and Company. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Adverum shareholders will receive $3.56 per share in cash plus one non-transferable contingent value right ("CVR") entitling the holder to receive up to an additional $8.91 per CVR in cash upon the achievement of two certain milestones. ACT NOW. The Tender Offer expires on December 8, 2025. Visit link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/adverum-biotechnologies-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Barinthus Biotherapeutics plc (NASDAQ: BRNS) related to its merger with Clywedog Therapeutics, Inc. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Barinthus shareholders will receive one share of common stock in the new combined company for each American Depository Share or ordinary share owned, and Clywedog shareholders will receive 4.358932 shares of common stock in the new combined company for each common or preferred share owned. Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/barinthus-biotherapeutics-plc/ . It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Monteverde & Associates PC Logo NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN] CENTER FOR TRANSITIONAL: Class Cert Discovery Due March 31, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michaud v. Center for Transitional Living L.L.C., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00481 (D. Conn., Filed March 25, 2025), the Hon. Judge Omar A. Williams entered an order adopting all proposed deadlines as follows: All discovery shall be completed on or before March 31, 2026, and all interim discovery deadlines are incorporated by reference All interim discovery deadlines may be amended by agreement of the parties without the courts approval provided those amendments do not delay the deadline for completion of all discovery. If the case does not settle, a schedule for dispositive motions shall be established after this court rules on Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification. If no motions for class certification, or summary judgment are filed, the joint trial memorandum required by the court's standing order on trial memoranda will be filed by May 31, 2026. If any such motions are filed, the joint trial memorandum will be filed within 60 days of the courts decision on any such motion(s), or within the period set by the court upon its disposition of any dispositive motions that are filed. The court thereafter will set a jury selection date and a trial date. Last, the court grants nunc pro tunc the Defendants' uncontested motion for extension of time. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant is a home care agency.[CC] CHUNG LLC: Wins Partial Deposition Expense Reimbursement in "Li" ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Jianxin Li, Man Xiu Xiong, Plaintiffs, v. Chung LLC, Stanley Chung, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:24-cv-00025 (W.D. Va.), Judge Jasmine H. Yoon of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion for attorney's fees and deposition expenses. On April 23, 2024, Li, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, filed a complaint alleging that Defendants violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., the Virginia Minimum Wage Act, Va. Code Ann. Section 40.1-28.8 et seq., and the 2020 amendments to the Virginia Wage Payment Act. The court held a jury trial on the matter on August 18-20, 2025. The court entered a judgment order consistent with the jury verdict in favor of the Defendants. On May 13, 2025, Defendants served an Amended Notice of Deposition on Li's counsel. Li appeared, and the first day of the deposition was completed on May 19, 2025. Li's deposition was scheduled to resume on May 21, 2025. On May 20, 2025, on the evening before the second day of Li's deposition, Defendants' counsel investigated the qualifications and bar licenses of Li's counsel, Aaron B. Schweitzer and Tiffany Troy. At around 6:30 p.m., Defendants' counsel discovered that Schweitzer had been administratively suspended from the Virginia State Bar on March 18, 2025, due to his failure to comply with Continuing Legal Education requirements. At the start of Li's deposition the next day, William Seymour, one of Defendants' attorneys, raised his concerns with the license suspension of Li's counsel. Troy, who appeared at the deposition without Schweitzer, responded that she had been unaware of the issue and that counsel would be taking care of that as soon as they ended the deposition. However, Seymour expressed his ethical concerns with continuing the deposition until it was resolved, as Troy had been admitted pro hac vice by this court in association with Schweitzer. Consequently, the parties adjourned for around forty minutes to allow Troy to address the issue. When they resumed, Troy contended that Schweitzer was currently admitted in the Virginia Western District based on a waiver in for the Virginia Eastern District and not based on the Virginia state court admissions. She said that Schweitzer would call the Virginia State Bar and fix the issue as soon as possible. She also argued that his lapse in good standing with the Virginia State Bar did not affect the ethics of conducting the deposition that day because Li's counsel did not find any requirement for the maintenance of a Virginia State Bar license for Schweitzer to practice in the Virginia Western District federal court. Since Seymour still believed that Virginia State Bar admission was required to proceed, the attorneys set up a joint call with U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe. The parties took another recess for around two hours while waiting to hear from Judge Hoppe's chambers. They returned in the afternoon to conclude that, having not been able to reach chambers, they would schedule another date for the remaining one to two hours of the deposition. The stenographically reported exchange, including the recess periods, lasted for about 3 hours and 30 minutes. The next day, the parties appeared for a telephonic hearing with Judge Hoppe. During the hearing, Schweitzer confirmed on the record that he was not in good standing with the Virginia State Bar. Following the hearing, Judge Hoppe issued an oral order. The order declared that, because Virginia attorneys who are not in good standing are not eligible to practice before this Court, Schweitzer could not appear on Li's behalf in any capacity while not in good standing. Further, Judge Hoppe ruled that because Ms. Troy's ability to appear pro hac vice in this action depends upon Mr. Schweitzer maintaining his eligibility to practice before this Court, Troy also could not appear on Li's behalf. Finally, Judge Hoppe denied Troy's request for a four-week stay for Li to find new local counsel, as Plaintiff had not shown good cause and a stay would likely impact the case schedule. However, Li did not ultimately need to secure new local counsel because the next day, May 23, Schweitzer advised the Clerk's Office that his Virginia State Bar status had been restored to In Good Standing. In their motion, Defendants assert that Schweitzer's failure to timely cure his administrative suspension impeded, delayed, and frustrated Li's Deposition. They attach invoices from the May 21 attempted deposition, which depict costs totaling $6,123.25. The sum total includes $3,460.00 for Chung's attorney fees, $660.25 for the court reporter's attendance and transcription, and $2,003.00 for the interpreter's appearance, travel, and mileage. The court exercises its discretion to find that, pursuant to Rule 30(d)(2), Schweitzer will be required to reimburse Chung for certain deposition expenses resulting from his failure to timely rectify his March 2025 administrative suspension. The court does not impose the cost of attorney's fees on Schweitzer. Defendants do not provide sufficient details of the fees requested. Accordingly, the court will grant in part and deny in part the Defendants' motion for deposition expenses against Schweitzer by excluding attorney's fees from the total award. The court does not find Troy's conduct egregious enough to warrant the imposing Rule 30(d)(2) sanctions on her. Troy says that she did not have any personal knowledge of Schweitzer's administrative suspension until Seymour informed her. Once notified, Troy immediately sought to remedy the problem. Although the court understands there may be drawbacks for not having an on-site interpreter, the court does not find it reasonable for Defendants to expend $1,223 on an interpreter to travel from New Jersey to Richmond for a Zoom deposition. Thus, this amount will be excluded from the expenses awarded. Defendants' motion for attorney's fees and deposition costs is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs' counsel, Aaron B. Schweitzer, is ordered to pay Defendants for expenses related to the deposition in the total amount of $1,440.25 within thirty days of this order. A copy of the Court's decision dated 7th November is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oOsNVx from PacerMonitor.com CITY OF MEMPHIS: Overbilled Taxpayers for Tree-Trimming, Kiner Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- REV. DR. GERALD KINER, Pro Se Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated MLGW ratepayers, Plaintiff v. CITY OF MEMPHIS and MEMPHIS LIGHT, GAS & WATER DIVISION (MLGW), and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10 (to be revealed during discovery), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02987-MSN-tmp (W.D. Tenn., October 29, 2025) is a class action complaint seeking damages, injunctive relief and treble damages for Defendants' unlawful conduct under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, False Claims Act, and the Civil Rights Act, and for violation of the constitutional and statutory rights of taxpayers and citizens of Memphis, Tennessee. This case concerns a public utility and city government that turned negligence into policy -- and then demanded that ratepayers shoulder the cost of their misconduct, says the complaint. On December 5, 2023, the Memphis City Council approved a 12 percent rate increase explicitly linked to a $228 million tree-trimming initiative. Evidence obtained through public-records requests and comparative audit establishes that MLGW paid $23.152 per mile for vegetation management while Nashville and Knoxville paid $6.641 and $7,223 per mile respectively -- a markup of over 300 percent. These figures demonstrate a pattern of overbilling and self-dealing as contract amounts were knowingly inflated without competitive verification, the complaint asserts. On December 6, 2023, the University of Memphis Institute for Public Service Reporting published "Trimming Trees: MLGW's Ambitious Plan to Curb Power Outages." Therein, MLGW CEO Doug McGowen admitted that the utility has operated under a "run-to-fail" mindset, acknowledging decades of deferred maintenance and a lack of fiscal discipline. The report further recorded that critics warned MLGW was "overpaying for tree trimming." Despite the warnings, City Council Chair Martavius Jones declared the increase worth it, illustrating willful blindness to clear evidence of overbilling and continuity of enterprise. The enterprise consists of: City officials who approved the contracts and rate increases; MLGW executives who authorized and transmitted inflated payments; and contractors and consultants who received those funds. Its object was to divert public money under false pretenses, misusing federal utility funds and ratepayer revenue for unjust enrichment, the complaint alleges. As a direct result of Defendants'·conduct, ratepayers began paying higher bills in January 2024 without commensurate service benefit, the complaint relates. Plaintiff and the class have suffered monetary injury through unlawful overcharges and misuse of public funds, it adds. Plaintiff Rev. Dr. Gerald Kiner is a Memphis resident, taxpayer and ratepayer and early protester of the $228 million tree-trimming contract. Defendant City of Memphis owns and operates MLGW, which is a municipal utility that receives federal and state funding exceeding $10 million per year. John Doe Defendants 1-10 are individuals and/or entities whose identities will be revealed in discovery and who participated in or benefited from the enterprise.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. COAST ALUMINUM: Conditional Cert. Filing Due March 12, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Smith v. Coast Aluminum, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-02129 (D. Or., Filed Dec. 20, 2024), the Hon. Judge Adrienne Nelson entered an order granting Joint Motion to Extend Case Management Deadlines as follows: -- Completion of pre-FLSA conditional certification discovery, including related to certification experts, is now Feb. 23, 2026. -- The deadline to file a motion for FLSA conditional certification is now March 12, 2026. -- The deadline to file a response to the motion for FLSA conditional certification is thirty (30) days following the date of filing of the motion for FLSA conditional certification. -- The deadline to file a reply in support of the motion for FLSA conditional certification is fourteen (14) days following the date of filing of the response to the motion for FLSA conditional certification. -- The deadline to file a motion for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 23 class certification is now August 17, 2026. -- The deadline to file a response to the motion for FRCP 23 class certification is thirty (30) days following the date of filing of the motion for FRCP 23 class certification. -- The deadline to file a reply in support of the motion for FRCP 23 class certification is 14 days following the date of filing of the response to the motion for FRCP 23 class certification. -- The parties shall contact the Court within fourteen (14) days of the Court's ruling on the motion for FLSA conditional certification to schedule a case management conference to establish remaining deadlines. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Coast supplies an extensive inventory of aluminum, stainless steel, copper, and brass.[CC] COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Faces Class Suit Over Lead in Toothpaste -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that two consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Colgate-Palmolive Company. Why: The plaintiffs claim Colgate failed to disclose that its hello kids toothpaste contains "substantial" levels of lead. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Colgate-Palmolive Co. misled consumers by failing to disclose that its hello kids toothpaste contains "substantial" levels of lead. Plaintiffs Nathan Barton and Cynthia Fahrnkopf claim independent laboratory testing found all flavors of the Colgate toothpaste contain a substantial amount of lead. "The amount of lead in the Products far exceeds any amount that would be considered safe for children; indeed, many pediatricians and toxicologists agree that no level of lead exposure is safe for children," the Colgate toothpaste class action says. Barton and Fahrnkopf want to represent a California class of consumers who bought Colgate's hello kids toothpaste in the past four years. Colgate misleads consumers into thinking hello kids toothpaste is safe, class action claims Barton and Fahrnkopf claim labels allegedly representing Colgate's hello kids toothpaste as being safe are misleading and deceptive due to the alleged substantial amount of lead. The plaintiffs argue that the label representations "are likely to lead reasonable consumers of Defendant's Products to believe that they are purchasing a premium toothpaste that is designed and safe for use by children." The front label of Colgate's kids fluoride toothpaste states that it is for "kids ages 2+" and the front label of Colgate's fluoride-free toothpaste states that it is for "kids all ages," according to the Colgate toothpaste class action lawsuit. The class action lawsuit further argues that vibrant box imagery, including colorful backgrounds featuring rainbows, strawberries and watermelons, and images of unicorns, sharks, mermaids and dragons, is also intentionally designed to appeal to children and their caregivers. Barton and Fahrnkopf claim Colgate is in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and request declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory and monetary damages for themselves and all class members. A previous toothpaste-related complaint accused Colgate and its subsidiary Tom's of Maine of selling toothpaste products made with bacteria-contaminated water. The plaintiffs are represented by Naomi Spector of KamberLaw LLP. The Colgate toothpaste class action lawsuit is Barton, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., Case No. 3:25-cv-02833, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. [GN] COLONY RIDGE: Agrees to Settle Marketing Texts Class Suit for $2MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Colony Ridge Development LLC has agreed to pay nearly $2 million to settle a class action lawsuit over allegedly unsolicited marketing texts sent by the company within a five-year period. The $1,994,123 Colony Ridge Development class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on September 17, 2025 and covers up to 71,700 people who, between June 27, 2020 and May 7, 2025, received more than one promotional text within a 12-month period from Colony Ridge Development (doing business as Terrenos Santa Fe), whose phone number had been on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least 30 days prior to receiving at least two texts, and whose phone number is included in the settlement class data. The court-approved website for the Colony Ridge Development class action settlement can be found at https://www.ColonyRidgeTCPASettlement.com/. Colony Ridge Development settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form are eligible to receive a one-time, pro-rated cash payment of approximately $1,000 to $2,000. The final amount of each eligible class member's cash payout will depend on the total number of valid claims that are filed and what remains in the settlement fund after the payment of settlement administration expenses, attorney costs and fees, and any service awards from the settlement fund. According to the class action settlement website, eligible class members will receive their payout via check, which must be cashed within 120 days after the date of issuance before it expires. To submit a Colony Ridge Development settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the class member ID listed on the postcard notice sent to prospective class members. Consumers who believe they may be a class member but did not receive a notice should contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and receive their login ID. Contact information can be found at the bottom of the home page of the class action settlement website. Colony Ridge Development settlement claim forms must be submitted online by December 15, 2025. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the Colony Ridge Development settlement at a hearing on February 17, 2026. Compensation will begin to be distributed to class members only after final approval is granted and any appeals are resolved. The class action lawsuit against Colony Ridge Development alleged that the company, doing business as Terrenos Santa Fe, sent more than one advertising or marketing text message to residential telephone numbers, including to ones listed in the National Do-Not-Call Registry, without obtaining prior express written consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. [GN] COLUMBIA CASUALTY: To Defend BetterHelp in Privacy Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Lewis reports that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently held that an insurer had a duty to defend an online therapy company in a privacy class action, rejecting arguments that "related acts" and "prior knowledge" exclusions barred coverage. The decision clarifies that such exclusions may not apply when new claims allege distinct wrongful acts under a claims-made policy. The "timing" trigger of coverage under a claims-made liability insurance policy is easy to recite -- coverage is triggered by a claim "made" against the insured and "reported" to the insurer during the policy period. Real-world practice, however, is often far more complicated due to the presence of "related claims" and "interrelated wrongful acts" provisions in the policies that may bring a claim "back in time" to a period of no coverage or into exclusions resulting from the insured's prior acts or prior knowledge. In BetterHelp, Inc. v. Columbia Casualty Co., decided October 29, 2025, the US District Court for the Northern District of California resolved a dispute over application of these policy provisions in favor of the insured. PRIVACY CLASS ACTION AND COVERAGE DISPUTE The case arose from Columbia Casualty's refusal to defend a class action lawsuit filed against BetterHelp, an online therapy company, in 2023 alleging that BetterHelp "divulged" confidential user information to a third-party network. The insurer asserted the suit was "unequivocally related to and interrelated with" a prior Federal Trade Commission (FTC) civil investigative demand (CID) and draft FTC complaint alleging that BetterHelp disclosed consumer health information without consent. It therefore contended that it was not obligated to defend the suit based on its policy's prior executive knowledge provision and a prior wrongful acts exclusion. The district court disagreed, concluding that Columbia Casualty did not meet its burden to avoid a defense duty by establishing that "no conceivable theory" asserted in the class action complaint could bring the suit within policy coverage. First, it held that the insurer did not establish that the FTC's CID imparted knowledge to BetterHelp's executives of the specific wrongful acts alleged in the class action suit. Second, it held that Columbia Casualty did not show that the CID was "connected to" the class action suit. Third, the district court concluded that Columbia Casualty did not establish that the suit arose "completely out of" prior, excluded acts. Although the sharing of personal data was at issue in the class action complaint and in the FTC's earlier draft complaint, the class action complaint also concerned certain conduct that was absent from the FTC's document. Columbia Casualty therefore could not establish the necessary "causal link" between the class action lawsuit and the conduct at issue in the FTC's draft complaint. KEY TAKEAWAYS FOR POLICYHOLDERS AND INSURERS BetterHelp exemplifies the need for insureds and their counsel to scrutinize the details of the pertinent documents an insurer asserts implicate "related claims" or "interrelated wrongful acts" provisions that, in concert with other policy provisions, justify a coverage denial under a claims-made policy. Similarities in the documents at high levels of generality (e.g., they each allege the "wrongful sharing of personal data)" do not necessarily mean they do not also allege different underlying events, transactions, or situations lacking the necessary "causal connection" for the insurer to get out from under its broad duty to defend. A good preliminary question to ask in these cases is: could the activities alleged in the second claim have occurred independently of the activities alleged in the first claim? If so, the two claims might not be "related" and the acts at issue in the second claim might not be "interrelated" with the acts at issue in the first claim. HOW WE CAN HELP Our lawyers stand ready to advise policyholders and insurers on complex coverage disputes involving data privacy, cybersecurity, and class action claims to help mitigate risk and preserve coverage in evolving regulatory and litigation landscapes. [GN] CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Willstein Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH SWANSON WILLSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-17068 (D.N.J., October 30, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information that was impacted in a data breach. On January 13, 2025, the Defendant discovered that it was the victim of a cyber incident. In response, the Defendant launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the data breach. The Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself, and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was accessed and/or compromised during the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class, assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, and breach of third-party beneficiary contract. Conduent Business Services is a provider of digital business solutions and services to clients across the commercial, government, transportation and healthcare sectors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1133 Avenue of the Americas, 31st floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (917) 438-9189 CONDUENT BUSINESS: Marshall Sues Over Unsecured PII & PHI --------------------------------------------------------- Brian Marshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-16994-BRM-JBC (D.N.J., Oct. 28, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' sensitive information, including names, addresses, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers (collectively personally identifiable information ("PII")) and protected health information ("PHI") including medical information, and health insurance information. Despite Defendant's duty to safeguard the Private Information of its current and previous customers, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was compromised in a data breach when, on or about January 13, 2024, Defendant discovered that it was the victim of cyber incident impacting its network (the "Data Breach"). The data breach occurred in part because Defendant stored Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information in an unencrypted, Internet-accessible environment. The Private Information impacted by the Data Breach includes a wide swath of highly sensitive information belonging to Plaintiff and the Class Members, including their names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, medical information, and health insurance information. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information is now exposed to cybercriminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are individuals whose Private Information was provided to Defendant. Conduent provides digital business solutions and services spanning the commercial, government, healthcare and transportation sectors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Stephen F. Connolly, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1760 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 267-609-6910 Fax: 267-609-6955 Email: jerry@lcllp.com steve@lcllp.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: gary@lcllp.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Class Suit Over Kirkland Tequila False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Ariel Glazer filed a class action lawsuit against Costco Wholesale Corp. Why: Glazer claims Costco falsely advertises its Kirkland Signature brand tequila as being made from 100% blue agave. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Florida federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Costco falsely advertises its Kirkland Signature brand tequila as being made from 100% blue agave. Plaintiff Ariel Glazer claims the Kirkland Signature tequila is not actually 100% blue agave, despite being advertised as such, and that it contains ethanol from other sources. Glazer wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased Kirkland Signature tequila during the applicable statute of limitations period. "Plaintiff and others similarly situated paid premium prices for the Products in reliance on Defendant's representations that the Products were created from 100% Blue Weber agave," the Kirkland tequila class action says. Kirkland tequila violates U.S., Mexican regulations, class action alleges Glazer argues Costco's alleged misrepresentation of the Kirkland Signature tequila's composition violates both U.S. and Mexican regulations, which require tequila labeled as 100% agave to be made exclusively from blue agave sugars. Glazer claims she and other consumers paid a premium price for the Kirkland Signature tequila under the belief it was a pure, high-quality product. "If Plaintiff and others similarly situated had known the truth of the ingredients in the Products, they would not have purchased the Products or would have paid less for them," the Kirkland tequila class action says. Glazer claims Costco is guilty of negligence, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and violating Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory damages for herself and all class members. In another Costco/Kirkland lawsuit, a California federal judge denied Costco's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging its Kirkland Signature Baby Wipes contain toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) despite being marketed as "natural." The plaintiff is represented by Daniel S. Maland, Robert M. Stein and Sandra E. Mejia of Rennert Vogel Mandler & Rodriguez, P.A. The Costco class action lawsuit is Ariel Glazer v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. 1:25-cv-25057, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. [GN] COVENANT TRANSPORT: Rogers Seeks to Stay Proceedings ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY ROGERS, CARL SCHENK, and CHANEL PIERRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COVENANT TRANSPORT, INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-01043-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting Ex Parte Motion and either stay proceedings pending resolution of Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. Alternatively, the Plaintiff seeks a sequence class certification briefing to occur so that the Parties can file cross motions on certification to be heard concurrently after resolution of Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand and after sufficient time for class discovery. Accordingly, if this Court is not inclined to issue a stay of all proceedings pending its decision on Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand, then it should sequence Defendant's Motion to Deny Class Certification such that the deadline for oppositional briefing and the hearing is set after resolution of Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand for a date that will allow Plaintiffs to conduct at least 90-120 days of class discovery and to oppose Defendants' Motion to Deny Class Certification and file Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification to be heard concurrently with Defendant's Motion. Covenant provides logistics services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EOA79u at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig J. Ackermann, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C. 2602 North Proctor Street, Suite 205 Tacoma, WA 98406 Telephone: (310) 277-0614 Facsimile: (301) 277-0635 E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com CREDIT UNION: Settlement Prelim. Approval Tossed w/o Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA L. LUCERO, HEATHER BARTON, ILONA KOMPANIIETS, and CYNTHIA HURTADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CREDIT UNION RETIREMENT PLAN ASSOCIATION, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CREDIT UNION RETIREMENT PLAN ASSOCIATION, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF RETIREMENT PLANS, THE PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 3:22-cv-00208-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge James Peterson entered an order denying without prejudice the motion for class certification and preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. The parties may have until Dec. 19, 2025, to renew the motion or show cause why they are unable to do so. The total amount of the settlement appears to be fair, but Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2)(D) requires the court to consider whether a proposed settlement "treats class members equitably relative to each other." In its current form, the settlement does not appear to do that, the Court says. So, the parties must do two things: (1) provide at least a rough estimate of the proposed class's damages for the time period after defendants lowered their fees; and (2) modify the formula for calculating a class member's pro-rata share so that it reflects the lower fees after 2021, the Court adds Alternatively, the parties may agree to exclude post-2021 participants from the class so that all members are similarly situated. The court understands that addressing the court's concern will require the parties to modify their agreement, so the court will set a deadline that gives them time to do that. If they are able to reach a new agreement before the deadline, they are free to renew their motion sooner. To streamline the process, any renewed motion for class certification and preliminary approval may focus on the issue identified in this order and may incorporate by reference portions of the previous motion that do not require revision. The Plaintiffs are former participants of the Credit Union Retirement Plan Association 401(k) Plan, a multiple-employer plan. The Plaintiffs contend that several entities involved in administering the plan failed to control recordkeeping costs and thus breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The Plaintiffs previously moved for two things: (1) To certify a class encompassing anyone who participated from April 2016 to the present in the plan as adopted by FirstLight Federal Credit Union or California Coast Credit Union (Plaintiffs' former employers); and (2) To preliminarily approve a $570,000 settlement with defendants. The court denied the motions without prejudice but gave plaintiffs an opportunity to renew the motion to address several concerns. Plaintiffs now renew both motions. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Oct. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nMI4cO at no extra charge.[CC] CVS HEALTH: Data Class Action Lawsuit Can Proceed, Court Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a California federal judge ruled that a class action lawsuit against CVS Pharmacy and Medallia can proceed. Why: The lawsuit alleges CVS and Medallia illegally intercepted personal health information from those who visited CVS' website. Where: The CVS class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A California federal judge has ruled that a class action lawsuit accusing CVS Pharmacy and marketing partner Medallia of illegally intercepting personal health information from website visitors can proceed. The class action lawsuit alleges CVS and Medallia violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act and engaged in negligence and invasion of privacy by using third-party tracking technologies embedded on the CVS website to unlawfully collect visitors' personal health information for targeted advertising purposes. U.S. District Judge Michelle Court found that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged the disclosure of sensitive information and that consumers' loss of control of this data caused concrete harm, Law360 reports. Judge Court found that the plaintiff alleged a sufficiently concrete injury, the "loss of control" of his sensitive data, to establish Article III standing and adequately pleaded nearly all his claims against CVS and Medallia. However, the judge dismissed unjust enrichment claims with leave to amend, finding that the plaintiff failed to show the type of economic loss needed to support the allegation. Plaintiff given opportunity to amend privacy claims against third-party Criteo Judge Court also gave the plaintiff another opportunity to replead wiretap and privacy claims against a third defendant, Criteo Inc., after granting the digital advertising company's request to dismiss the suit for lack of specific personal jurisdiction in California. While he found that the complaint sufficiently alleged Criteo intentionally provided CVS with code designed to track users' activity on its website, the judge determined the pleadings did not show that this conduct was expressly aimed at California. CVS argued that the entire class action should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to allege specific facts showing what personal or health information was shared with unauthorized third parties. However, Judge Court found that the plaintiff's claims -- that he used the CVS website multiple times over the past year to research and purchase certain over-the-counter sexual health products and later saw advertisements related to those products -- were sufficient to allow the case to proceed. Earlier this year, CVS Health Corp. faced a class action lawsuit accusing the company of sending unsolicited telemarketing text messages to numbers listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. The plaintiff is represented by Nicholas R. Lange and Jonathan M. Jagher of Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, John J. Nelson and William J. Edelman of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC and Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A. The CVS class action lawsuit is Neil Getz v. CVS Health Corp., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-04689, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] CYTOKINETICS INC: Faces Suit Over Misleading Aficamten Drug Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sheryl Sheth of TIPRANKS reports that a class action lawsuit was filed against Cytokinetics, Inc. CYTK -0.64% on September 17, 2025. The plaintiffs (shareholders) alleged that they bought CYTK stock at artificially inflated prices between December 27, 2023, and May 6, 2025 (Class Period) and are now seeking compensation for their financial losses. Investors who bought Cytokinetics stock during that period can click here to learn about joining the lawsuit. Cytokinetics is a specialty cardiovascular biopharmaceutical company with a robust pipeline of small-molecule muscle activators and inhibitors designed to treat diseases characterized by impaired muscle function. These include heart failure, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), and various neuromuscular disorders. The company's claims about its lead drug candidate, Aficamten, particularly those related to its New Drug Application (NDA) and commercialization timeline, are at the heart of the current complaint. Cytokinetics' Misleading Claims According to the lawsuit, Cytokinetics and its CEO (the Defendants) repeatedly made false and misleading public statements throughout the Class Period. In particular, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the submission of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) in association with the NDA, and the NDA approval, from SEC filings and related material. In a press release filed at the beginning of the Class Period, the CEO said they finished 2023 well, helped by strong results from their SEQUOIA-HCM study, which are moving the company forward toward its new focus on specialty cardiology. The company was getting ready to submit Aficamten for regulatory approval, preparing for its commercial launch, and continuing Phase 3 trials in patients with two types of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (oHCM and nHCM). They believe these trials would help prove that Aficamten can benefit a wider range of patients. Later, in its August 8, 2024 press release, Cytokinetics said it plans to include a specific risk management plan for Aficamten as part of its ongoing NDA. The company had expected to finish submitting the rolling NDA by the third quarter of 2024. Finally, in its December 2, 2024 press release, the CEO said that the FDA's acceptance of the Aficamten application was an important step toward bringing their scientific work to patients with obstructive HCM. However, subsequent events revealed that the defendants had failed to inform investors that Cytokinetics did not submit a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for the NDA that could delay the regulatory process. Plaintiffs' Arguments The plaintiffs maintain that the defendants deceived investors by lying and withholding critical information about the company's business and prospects during the Class Period. Importantly, the defendants allegedly misled investors regarding the timeline for the NDA submission and approval process for Aficamten. After a series of partial disclosures, the information became clear during the Q1 earnings call held on May 6, 2025. The CEO acknowledged that the company had held several pre-NDA meetings with the FDA about safety monitoring and risk management but decided to submit the NDA without including a REMS report, relying instead on labeling and voluntary educational materials. The complaint further claims that by making this admission, the CEO confirmed that both he and the company knew about the possible need for a REMS yet chose to exclude it from the original filing, thereby misleading investors about the regulatory timeline. Following the news, CYTK stock fell 7.4%. To conclude, the defendants misled investors into believing that the company expected the FDA approval for its Aficamten NDA in the second half of 2025, based on a September 26, 2025, PDUFA date, and failed to disclose material risks related to its failure to submit a REMS that could delay the regulatory process. Despite these issues, CYTK stock has gained 28.2% year-to-date. [GN] CZAR MARKETING: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 30, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUSTIN GRAMPS, v. CZAR MARKETING GROUP LLC, VACATION RESORTS CONSULTANTS LLC and RESORT SALES BY SPINNAKER, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-00373-CEM-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Mendoza entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Action or Event Deadline Mandatory initial disclosures: Nov. 7, 2025 Motion to join a party or amend pleadings: Dec. 30, 2025 Completion of discovery and motion to Jan. 4, 2027 compel discovery: Class Certification: Apr. 30, 2026 Dispositive and Daubert motions: Feb. 3, 2027 Mediation: Jan. 19, 2027 Joint pretrial meeting: May 28, 2027 Czar is a marketing company specializing in vacation packages both domestically and internationally. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dWwUwR at no extra charge.[CC] DES MOINES REGISTER: Court Dismisses Fraud Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ FIRE reports that a federal district court dismissed with prejudice a lawsuit against renowned Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer, holding that the First Amendment bars the claims against her related to her October 2024 general election poll. As the court explained, "there is no free pass around the First Amendment." The lawsuit, brought by a subscriber to The Des Moines Register and styled as a class action, stemmed from a poll Selzer published before the 2024 presidential election that predicted Vice President Kamala Harris leading by three points in Iowa. The suit asserted claims, including under Iowa's Consumer Fraud Act, alleging that Selzer's poll, which missed the final result by a wide margin, constituted "fake news" and "fraud." Selzer, represented pro bono by FIRE, pushed back. FIRE explained that commentary about a political election is core protected speech. "Fake news" is a political buzzword, not a legal cause of action. And "fraud" is a defined legal concept: intentionally lying to convince someone to part with something of value. The court explained, "polls are a mere snapshot of a dynamic and changing electorate" and "the results of an opinion poll are not an actionable false representation merely because the anticipated results differ from what eventually occurred." As the Supreme Court has said, a party cannot evade First Amendment scrutiny by "simply labeling an action one for fraud." The court held the plaintiff had "no factual allegations" to support his fraud claim, instead "invok[ing] mere buzzwords and speculation" to support his claims. And not only did the court find the First Amendment barred the claims, it similarly held each claim defective under Iowa law even without the First Amendment's protection. Selzer is pleased with the result: I am pleased to see this lawsuit has been dismissed. The First Amendment's protection for free speech and a free press held strong. I know that I did nothing wrong and I am glad the court also concluded that there was never a valid legal claim. FIRE's Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere, who led Selzer's defense, responded to the ruling: This decision shows where petty politics ends and the rule of law begins. The court's strongly worded opinion confirms that a legal claim cannot be concocted with political slogans and partisan hyperbole, and that there is no hiding from the First Amendment. This is a good day for freedom of speech. This lawsuit was a copycat of a still-pending suit filed by President Donald Trump against Selzer in December 2024 in which FIRE also represents her. FIRE Supervising Senior Attorney Conor Fitzpatrick remarked, "President Trump's suit makes the same frivolous arguments against the same defendants. We are confident it will meet the same fate." The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought -- the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation's campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience. CONTACT: Karl de Vries, director of media relations, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org [GN] DIGNITY HEALTH: Bid to Restore Previous Schedule Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vafa Ghaemmaghami, v. Dignity Health, Case No. 2:24-cv-00052-KML (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Lanham entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Parties' request to restore a previous schedule that allows for the completion of class-based discovery by April 10, 2026, and contemplates the deadline Dignity provides health care services throughout Arizona, California and Nevada. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IG28sd at no extra charge.[CC] DISCOVERY PRACTICE: Agrees to Settle 2020 Data Breach Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that Discovery Practice Management (DPM) has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit over a June 2020 data breach that potentially compromised individuals' names, Social Security numbers and other private information. The Discovery Practice Management class action settlement received preliminary approval from the court on August 26, 2025 and covers 5,668 individuals who received mailed notice from DPM that their personal information was potentially compromised. The court-approved website for the DPM data breach settlement can be found at DPMDataSettlement.com. To receive a DPM settlement cash payment, eligible class members must submit a valid claim form online or by mail by November 24, 2025. To submit a DPM settlement claim form online, class members can head to this page and enter the unique settlement claim ID found on their copy of the settlement notice. Alternatively, class members can download a PDF claim form to print, fill out and return by mail to the settlement administrator. As part of the deal, the website relays that DPM settlement class members who submit a valid, timely claim form are eligible to receive reimbursement of up to $250 per person for "ordinary" out-of-pocket expenses that are reasonably linked to the June 2020 data breach and supported by documentation. Per the site, qualifying expenses must be unreimbursed and may include charges related to obtaining credit reports or freezing credit, bank or credit card fees, costs associated with credit monitoring or identity theft insurance services, overlimit or late fees and other miscellaneous expenses. Consumers can also file a claim for compensation for up to four hours of lost time spent dealing with issues related to the incident, at a rate of $15 per hour, the website shares. Any claims for lost time will be subject to the $250 cap for reimbursement of ordinary expenses, the settlement agreement adds. Moreover, the website states that class members who submit a claim form may receive reimbursement of up to $1,000 per person for documented "extraordinary" losses, provided that the charges were caused by the data breach and have not been reimbursed through another source. Covered losses must have been incurred between June 20, 2020 and November 24, 2025, the site notes. In addition to reimbursement benefits, class members are eligible to enroll in three years of complimentary fraud and identity theft protection services provided by CyEx, the site says. Per the website, though a claim form is not required, class members must enroll by December 9, 2025 to receive these services. Class members can enroll on this page using their email address and the activation code sent in the settlement notice. Consumers who believe they may be a class member but did not receive a class action settlement notice can contact the settlement administrator to confirm their identity and receive their login information. The court will determine whether to grant final approval to the DPM settlement at a hearing on February 5, 2026. The agreement states that, should the deal be ultimately approved, settlement payments will be issued to eligible class members within 60 days following the date the deal goes into effect, or within 30 days of the date their claim is approved, whichever is later. The Discovery Practice Management class action lawsuit alleged that inadequate cybersecurity on the part of the California-based healthcare provider resulted in unauthorized access to two employee email accounts in June 2020. According to court documents, the personal information potentially impacted by the data breach included names, dates of birth, addresses, medical information, insurance information, contact information and Social Security numbers. [GN] DOXIMITY INC: Plaintiff Considers Sealing of Class Docs ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Doximity, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:24-cv-02281-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion to consider whether another party's material should be sealed. In accordance with Civil Local Rules 79-5(f) and 7-11 Lead Plaintiff New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund provisionally files under seal Lead Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Representative and Class Counsel, the Declaration of Jonathan D. Uslaner in Support of the Reply Memorandum and certain filed Exhibits. The Protective Order provides that Lead Plaintiff must provisionally file the Reply Memorandum, the Uslaner Declaration and Exhibits D, E, F, M, N, T, U, W, Y, CC, DD, and EE under seal, as all either consist of, quote, or reference materials that Defendants have designated Confidential and argue require sealing. While obligated to file the Reply Memorandum, the Uslaner Declaration and the Sealed Exhibits provisionally under seal under the Protective Order, Lead Plaintiff takes no position on whether these documents contain information warranting sealing. The provisionally sealed Exhibits D, E, F, M, N, T, U, W, Y, CC, DD, and EE contain, or reference material designated "Confidential" by Defendants. The Protective Order provides that, under these circumstances, Lead Plaintiff must file under seal at this time the following documents: Doximity is an online networking service for medical professionals. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YsSDrz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq. Lauren M. Cruz, Esq. John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. Timothy G. Fleming, Esq. Matthew Arrow, Esq. Hannah Ross, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 819-3470 E-mail: jonathanu@blbglaw.com lauren.cruz@blbglaw.com johnr@blbglaw.com timothy.fleming@blbglaw.com matthew.arrow@blbglaw.com hannah@blbglaw.com - and - Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 400-3000 Facsimile: (415) 400-3001 E-mail: skaplan@ktmc.com EASTWOOD AUTOMOTIVE: Class Cert Bid Filing Due June 22, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as O'Connor v. Eastwood Automotive Group, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01320 (D. Conn., Filed Aug. 18, 2025), the Hon. Judge Kari A. Dooley entered an order on Pretrial Deadlines as follows: The Plaintiff shall move to amend the pleadings or move to join additional parties by Feb. 22, 2026. The Defendant shall move to join additional parties by Feb.22, 2026 , and shall respond to the operative complaint by Feb. 22, 2026. All discovery shall be concluded by July 22, 2026. Any Motion for Class Certification shall be filed by June 22, 2026. Dispositive motions, if any ( see Local Rule 56(c)), shall be filed by Jan. 22, 2027. The Court will set a date for filing a Joint Trial Memorandum after the close of discovery. The Joint Trial Memorandum shall comport with this Court's Standing Order, which will be separately docketed. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Eastwood develops, markets, and sells automotive accessories.[CC] ELEPHANT INSURANCE: Dismissal of Holmes Suit Affirmed in Part ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned CHRISTOPHER HOLMES; TRINITY BIAS; JAIME CARDENAS; ROBERT SHAW, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs - Appellants v. ELEPHANT INSURANCE COMPANY; ELEPHANT INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC; PLATINUM GENERAL AGENCY INC., d/b/a APPARENT INSURANCE, Defendants - Appellees, Case No. 23-1782 (4th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirms in part and reverses in part the dismissal of a data breach case. The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond (John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge, Case No. 3:22-cv-00487-JAG). The Fourth Circuit panel consists of G. Steven Agee, Julius N. Richardson, and Nicole G. Berner, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded by published opinion. Judge Richardson wrote the Opinion, in which Judge Agee and Judge Berner joined. On appeal before the Panel is solely the limited question of whether the Plaintiffs here even can bring a data breach lawsuit, or whether they lack standing to do so. The Panel holds that a subset of the Plaintiffs has standing to continue their lawsuit on one of their alleged injuries-in-fact. The Panel affirms the district court's dismissal of the remainder. Elephant Insurance Company and affiliates, Elephant Insurance Services LLC, and Apparent Insurance, sell various forms of insurance, including home and car insurance. To make purchasing insurance more convenient, Elephant--like many other insurance providers--designed its online quoting platform to auto-populate certain information like driver's license numbers whenever a potential customer provided other information, such as their name, address, and date of birth. The quoting platform's autopopulate feature was made possible by Elephant's database of personal information, which includes information not just from its own customers but also from third-party sources like DMV records. Unnamed hackers breached Elephant's network between March 26 and April 1, 2022, compromising the driver's license numbers of nearly 3 million people. Although Elephant has not confirmed how the information was compromised, the Plaintiffs allege that the hackers took advantage of Elephant's quoting platform by entering a person's publicly available information and acquiring their driver's license number via the autopopulate feature. Elephant announced the breach in a public statement a month later, sending individualized notices of the breach, along with an offer of a year of free credit monitoring, to all those affected. Among those affected were Trinity Bias, Jaime Cardenas, Christopher Holmes, and Robert Shaw. In July, a few months after they were notified that their personal information was compromised in the breach, Bias and Cardenas sued Elephant on behalf of a putative class. A few days later, Holmes brought a substantially similar class action. The district court consolidated the two cases, and the parties--now with Shaw--filed a consolidated class action complaint putatively representing all people affected by the breach of Elephant's network. In the consolidated complaint, the four Plaintiffs asserted that the breach injured them in various ways. All four alleged that they spent time reviewing their credit and financial documents--time they would otherwise have spent on other productive activities. The consolidated complaint contains five class-wide claims: (1) a violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act; (2) negligence; (3) negligence per se; (4) unjust enrichment; and (5) declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act. It also includes three additional claims for two subclasses: (6) a violation of the Texas Consumer Protection Act for the Texas Subclass; and (7) a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act; and (8) a violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, both for the Illinois Subclass. All four Plaintiffs also alleged that the breach increased their risk of identity theft, with Cardenas and Holmes claiming that they had found their driver's license numbers on the dark web. Holmes and Shaw added that this risk caused them significant fear, anxiety, and stress. And Holmes alone asserted that he experienced an uptick in texts and calls from spammers requesting his insurance policy information or posing as debt collectors. As relief, the Plaintiffs requested monetary damages, a declaration that Elephant's existing security measures are unlawfully inadequate, and an injunction against Elephant ordering it to improve its data security. The Plaintiffs' class action lawsuit never made it past the threshold. Instead, the district court concluded that the Plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue any of their claims. The district court identified and rejected several possible injuries in the Plaintiffs' complaint. The district court thus granted Elephant's Rule 12(b)(1) motion as to all Plaintiffs and dismissed the entire case. The Plaintiffs then timely appealed the district court's dismissal. The Court determined that the 1,853 plaintiffs whose misleading Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") alerts were disseminated to a third party suffered a harm analogous to defamation and, thus, sufficient for concrete injury. But for the 6,332 whose misleading OFAC alerts were not disseminated, the Court concluded otherwise. Judge Richardson finds that having one's driver's license number listed on the dark web bears a close relationship to a harm recognized at common law. So Cardenas and Holmes have alleged facts showing that information they justifiably prefer to tightly control has been released into the open. Under TransUnion, that is sufficient to show a concrete injury in the eyes of Article III, Judge Richardson opines, citing TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 423 (2021). Elephant attacks the TransUnion analogy between the Plaintiffs' alleged harm and the public disclosure of private information tort in two ways. Judge Richardson holds that neither succeeds. First, Elephant argues that the Plaintiffs' theory of concrete injury should fail because they cannot satisfy one element required for liability under the public-disclosure tort: that Elephant made a disclosure. Though the Defendant cannot be held liable under the public-disclosure tort without disclosure, Judge Richardson points out there is still a concrete injury. Second, Elephant points out that a divided panel of the Seventh Circuit has held, in a case nearly identical to this one, that a driver's license number is not sufficiently close to the kind of sensitive information protected by the public disclosure of private information tort. In sum, Judge Richardson says, Cardenas and Holmes have had their driver's license numbers listed on the dark web against their justifiable wishes. Under TransUnion, they have suffered a concrete injury. And because that injury has already come to pass, it gives them standing to seek damages. On this specific basis for injury-in-fact, only for retrospective relief like damages, and only for Cardenas and Holmes, the Court of Appeals reverses the district court's decision. The Plaintiffs' other standing theories do not fare so well. Judge Richardson opines that the risk that their driver's license numbers may be misused in the future fails to furnish standing because they have not alleged facts showing that any particular misuse is imminent. The risk that another data breach may befall Elephant in the future fails for the same reason. And the lack of imminent injury prevents the Plaintiffs from bootstrapping their way into standing for damages solely by expending time or alleging emotional distress. For these reasons, Judge Richardson holds that Bias and Shaw have failed to allege any imminent harm; so, they lack standing to recover damages for any time spent or emotional distress felt too. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals holds that Cardenas and Holmes--along with anyone in their class, if their class is certified--can seek damages for that injury. But they cannot recover any other form of relief. And Bias and Shaw cannot recover at all. The requirements of Article III standing prohibit the Plaintiffs from receiving redress for speculative future injuries or for injuries incurred only in response to those speculative injuries. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ymyedck3 from GovInfo.gov. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf -- kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE, GRINDAL & NAUEN, P.L.L.P., in Minneapolis, Minnesota; Lee Floyd -- lee@bbtrial.com -- BREIT BINIAZAN, PC, in Richmond, Virginia; M. Anderson Berry -- aberry@justice4you.com -- CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP., in Sacramento, California; Gayle M. Blatt -- gmb@cglaw.com -- CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP, in San Diego, California; David K. Lietz -- dlietz@milberg.com -- MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC, in Washington, D.C., for the Appellants. James Francis Monagle -- jmonagle@mullen.law -- MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC, in Sacramento, California; Claudia D. McCarron -- cmccarron@mullen.law -- MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC, in Devon, Pennsylvania, for the Appellees. EMPOWER BRANDS: Lucien Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- CESAR LUCIEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EMPOWER BRANDS LLC, d/b/a Remington Products Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09055 (S.D.N.Y., October 31, 2025) is a civil action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website https://www.remingtonproducts.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. In October 2025, the Plaintiff attempted to repurchase grooming products through Defendant's official e-commerce platform. He encountered persistent access barriers that rendered the website incompatible with NonVisual Desktop Access. Specifically, (1) interactive elements such as "Add to Bag," "Shop Now," and promotional banners lacked ARIA labels and failed to announce their function or state; (2) core navigation menus used empty headings, unlabeled landmarks and redundant link structures, disrupting keyboard focus and logical reading order; (3) product images lacked descriptive alt text, rendering visual content inaccessible; and (4) modal dialogs, promotional banners, and carousel elements were not properly labeled or dismissible via keyboard commands, trapping focus and obstructing navigation. The complaint alleges that the Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, the Defendant is in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Empower Brands, LLC operates the website that offers grooming and personal care products.[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 E-mail: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Class Cert Bid in Frederick Due March 3, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARLENE FREDERICK, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01024-WWB-LLL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Berger entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Mandatory Initial Disclosures: Oct. 31, 2025 Motions to add Parties or to amend Dec. 12, 2025 pleadings: Deadline for moving for class certification: March 3, 2026 Disclosure of Expert Reports Plaintiff: June 30, 2026 Defendant: July 30, 2026 Rebuttal: Aug. 13, 2026 Discovery deadline: Aug. 28, 2026 Dispositive motions, and Daubert motions: Sept. 29, 2026 Meeting in person to prepare joint final Jan. 22, 2027 pretrial statement: Equifax provides data solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hS6c3t at no extra charge.[CC] FAROUK SYSTEMS: Howard Mislabeling Suit Transferred to S.D. Tex. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as CRYSTAL HOWARD and MARIANA TORRES, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. FAROUK SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00795 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on October 24, 2025. The Texas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-05096 to the proceeding. The case seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant concerning the unlawful labeling of its haircare products. Specifically, the complaint asserts that the products purchased by the Plaintiff are made with numerous synthentic ingredients despite being represented as 90% (or more) natural and all are made with numerous ingredients and components that are not grown, sourced or otherwise made in the United States, despite being labeled as "Made in the USA". Plaintiffs Howard and Torres are consumers residing in the State of California. Defendant Farouk Systems, Inc. is a manufacturer, distributor and seller of hair care products that conducts business through its website, through the websites of third-party vendors such as Amazon, and distributes its products to be sold in brick and mortar stores, such as Marshalls, as well hair care establishments.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jamison Gilmore, Esq. Erica R. Graves, Esq. Ana Tagvoryan, Esq. Blank Rome LLP Telephone: 424-239-3400 E-mail: atagvoryan@blankrome.com The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan L. McBride, Esq. Jonathan Gil, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S., #101 San Diego, California 92108 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com jonathan@kazlg.com FEIBEN EXPRESS: Lainez Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Juan Lainez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Feiben Express Inc., YunExpress USA Inc., Xuexuan Wang, and John Doe, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-17090 (D.N.J., October 31, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, and the New Jersey Wage Theft Law. The Plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to recover from Defendants, jointly and severally: (i) compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum wage (ii) unpaid overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek for which he did not receive the statutory required overtime premium pay; (iii) liquidated damages equal to the amount of unpaid wages because the Defendants' various unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices were willful and lacked a good faith basis; as well as (iv) liquidated damages in the amount up to 200% of the actual unpaid wages due, as a result of Defendants' knowing and willful failures to pay wages, provide wage statements and hiring notices and to maintain accurate payroll records. The Plaintiff was employed by Subcontractor Defendants to perform warehouse work, including unloading and classifying packages. Feiben Express Inc. owns and operates warehouse services business that regularly provided logistics and fulfillment labor at worksites in New Jersey, including Carteret.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Samuel, Esq. THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM 1441 Broadway, Suite 6085 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com - and - Reena Forst, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF REENA FORST 345 Union Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 568-5689 Facsimile: (201) 568-4479 E-mail: rforst@rflawfirm.com FIRST CHOICE: Final OK Hearing of $1.225M Suit Deal Set Jan. 12 --------------------------------------------------------------- Top class Actions reports that First Choice Dental has agreed to a $1.225 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to protect consumer information in a 2023 data breach. The First Choice Dental settlement benefits individuals in the United States whose private information was implicated in the data breach discovered by First Choice Dental in October 2023. According to claims made in the class action lawsuit, the First Choice Dental data breach allegedly compromised sensitive information such as names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial account information and health data. First Choice Dental, a dental practice with locations in Wisconsin, has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1.225 million settlement to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the First Choice Dental settlement, class members can receive up to $6,000 for documented economic losses resulting from the data breach. This includes monetary losses from fraud or identity theft, professional fees, credit expenses and other losses. Class members who did not experience economic losses can receive a $50 payment. All class members can receive three years of free credit monitoring through the settlement. This includes $1 million in identity theft protection insurance. The deadline for exclusion or objection is Dec. 29, 2025. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Jan. 12, 2026. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Jan. 28, 2026. Who's Eligible The settlement benefits individuals whose private information was implicated in the First Choice Dental data breach discovered in October 2023. Potential Award Up to $6,000 in documented economic losses or a $50 cash payment. Proof of Purchase Class members who wish to claim documented economic losses must provide documentation of their losses, such as receipts, bank statements, account statements, invoices, bills or other documentation. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 01/28/2026 Case Name Kelly Gorder, et al. v. FCDG Management LLC d/b/a First Choice Dental, Case No. 2024CV002164, in the Circuit Court of Dane County, State of Wisconsin. Final Hearing 12/01/2026 Settlement Website FSDGDataSettlement.com Claims Administrator First Choice Dental Data Breach Settlement Administrator PO Box 43429 Providence, RI 02940-3429 info@FirstChoiceDentalDataBreachSettlement.com (877) 855-2279 Class Counsel Raina C. Borrelli STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC David S. Almeida ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC Defense Counsel Lucas T. Tabor David M. Ross WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP [GN] FLAGSTAR BANK: Bid to Extend Pre-trial Deadlines Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Solomon v. Flagstar Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:24-cv-24482 (S.D. Fla., Filed Nov. 13, 2024), the Hon. Judge Roy K. Altman entered an order granting in part the Joint Motion to Extend Pre-trial Deadlines. The parties ask for a 90-day extension of the remaining pre-trial deadlines. The parties say that the ninety-day extension "is necessary to allow the parties to fully engage in both class and merits-based discovery and properly brief summary judgment and class certification." The nature of suit states Contract. Flagstar is an American commercial bank.[CC] FORDHAM UNIVERSITY: Case Management Conference Due Nov. 25 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIUS BOWDITCH, v. FORDHAM UNIVERSITY, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-04001-VSB-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order scheduling initial case management conference: It appears to the Court that no initial case management and scheduling conference has yet taken place in this action. It is therefore ordered that an initial conference in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 will be held on Nov. 25, 2025. No later than Nov. 18, 2025, one week prior to the conference, the parties must file a Pre-Conference Statement, via ECF, signed by counsel for all parties. The Statement, which will constitute the written report required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(2), must contain the following information: The date of the conference and appearances for the parties, including the names of the individual attorneys who will attend, their law firms, addresses, and telephone numbers, and the party or parties represented. The Court expects each party's principal trial attorney to attend the conference. A concise statement of the nature of the case and the issues as they appear on the date of the Statement, including any issues as to jurisdiction or venue and any anticipated motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) or (c). A proposed deadline for joining additional parties, amending the pleadings, or moving for leave to do so. Fordham is a private Jesuit research university in New York City. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MizI7e at no extra charge.[CC] FORGE GLOBAL: M&A Investigates Proposed Sale to Charles Schwab -------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Forge Global Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: FRGE) related to its sale to The Charles Schwab Corporation. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Forge Global shareholders will receive $45.00 in cash per share of Forge Global common stock. Is it a fair deal? Visit link for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/forge-global-holdings-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE EQUAL. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No one is above the law. If you own common stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 971-1341 jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] FRED MEYER: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 12, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY SHIELDS, v. FRED MEYER STORES INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01455-TL (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Tana Lin entered an order that the deadlines in the case schedule shall be extended and the modified case schedule through class certification set as follows: Event Date Deadline for joining additional parties: Dec. 31, 2024 Deadline for filing amended pleadings: Jan. 31, 2025 Class disclosure of expert testimony due: April 9, 2026 Class expert discovery cutoff: May 6, 2026 Class expert exclusion motions due: May 20, 2026 Class certification discovery cutoff: July 20, 2026 The Plaintiff's motion for class Aug. 12, 2026 certification to be filed: The Defendant's response to class Sept. 17, 2026 certification motion to be filed: The Plaintiff's reply to class Oct. 27, 2026 certification motion to be filed: Fred operates multidepartment stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IbRbdt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Guy W. Beckett, Esq. BERRY & BECKETT, PLLP 1708 Bellevue Avenue Seattle, WA 98122 Telephone: (206) 441-5444 E-mail: gbeckett@beckettlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Fred Burnside, Esq. Jacob Harper, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: fredburnside@dwt.com jacobharper@dwt.com FREEPORT-MCMORAN INC: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (NYSE: FCX) resulting from allegations that Freeport may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Freeport securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=45553 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On September 24, 2025, Freeport issued a press release entitled "Freeport Provides Update on PT Freeport Indonesia Operations." It stated that Freeport "announced today an update on the status of the previously reported mud rush incident at the Grasberg Block Cave mine (GBC) in Indonesia. On September 20, 2025, PT Freeport Indonesia (PTFI) located two team members who were regrettably fatally injured in the September 8th incident." On this news, Freeport stock fell by 16.95% on September 24, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] FTW ENTREPRISES: Paylor Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE PAYLOR, et al., v. FTW ENTREPRISES LLC d/b/a FTW HOLDINGS LLC, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-00735-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to file their reply in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification until 14-day after this Court rules on the Plaintiffs' pending motion to remand. The Defendants removed this case on September 18, 2025, contending that this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Prior to removal, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification in the Circuit Court of Jackson County at Independence. The Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand on Oct. 17, 2025. As fully explained in the motion, not only was removal untimely, but this case is a local controversy and therefore jurisdiction shall not be exercised under the Class Action Fairness Act. On October 28, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs until two weeks after the Motion to Remand is ruled upon to file their Opposition to Defendants recently filed Motions to Dismiss. The Defendant is engaged in renting, buying, selling and appraising real estate. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wFLIvX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan M. Soper, Esq. Kenneth B. McClain, Esq. Chelsea McClain Pierce, Esq. Andrew K. Smith, Esq. HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & McCLAIN, P.C. 221 W. Lexington, Suite 400 Independence, MO 64050 Telephone: (816) 836-5050 Facsimile: (816) 836-8966 E-mail: aks@hfmlegal.com jms@hfmlegal.com kbm@hfmlegal.com cmp@hfmlegal.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit Over Defective Ultium Home Chargers -------------------------------------------------------------- Jerry Reynolds of CarPro reports that a Florida couple has filed a proposed nationwide class action lawsuit against General Motors LLC, accusing the automaker of selling home-charging hardware for its Ultium-platform electric vehicles that is defective and unreliable. The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Florida, claims the so-called Ultium PowerUP Level 2 home charger routinely fails to perform, disrupting daily charging routines and undermining the convenience EV buyers were promised. According to the complaint, GM marketed the charger as part of the overall Ultium ownership experience, but the plaintiffs say it "fails to function properly," forcing owners to rely on public chargers or repeated service calls. They claim GM knew or should have known about the defect but failed to disclose it or provide a timely repair or recall program. GM's warranty documents show the Ultium PowerUP Level 2 home charger carries a three-year limited parts warranty, with an optional two-year extension available. Dealers have been instructed in internal service bulletins to replace defective units and return them for analysis. Online owner forums echo the issue, with some drivers reporting charger failures within the first year and difficulty obtaining full reimbursement for removal and reinstallation costs. At this stage, the case remains a proposed class action—it hasn't been certified—and GM hasn't filed a formal response. If certified, potential exposure could expand quickly, since every purchaser of the charger might become part of the class. The broader question is whether the alleged defect stems from the hardware itself, the installation process, or the software interface between the vehicle and charger. Each possibility raises a different warranty risk. For Ultium EV owners, it's smart to confirm the charger's model number and warranty coverage, document any failure or service history, and keep receipts. Repeated failure to maintain rated amperage, erratic charging, or frequent resets could qualify under warranty or consumer-protection laws. For dealers, the lawsuit could signal more complicated service claims ahead, as defective home-charging units become a reputational issue as much as a repair one. The lawsuit also highlights how the home-charging unit—once treated as a simple accessory—has become central to the EV ownership promise. With federal tax credits of up to $7,500 gone for EVs, reliability and convenience are now the main selling points for electrification. When the charger fails, the whole narrative of "easy home charging" begins to crumble. For GM and its competitors, the takeaway is clear: the ecosystem matters. Automakers can no longer separate the car from the wall box, software, and installation experience. A glitch in any one piece can spark legal exposure, warranty costs, and brand erosion. For consumers, it's another reminder to treat EV infrastructure as part of the purchase—not an afterthought. The Florida case may seem small, but it touches the heart of consumer trust in EV ownership. The battery may get the headlines, but the charger hanging on the garage wall could be what decides whether people stick with electric—or quietly go back to gas. [GN] GREENSKY INC: Wins Partial Summary Judgment v. Belyea ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH BELYEA, et al., v. GREENSKY, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01693-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting GreenSky's motion for partial summary judgment. In sum, the Court grants GreenSky’s motion for partial summary judgment. As a matter of law, the Plaintiffs were not injured by performance fees. So, under the plain language of the Credit Act and considering the most reasonable result, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover performance fee damages. Having so concluded, the Court need not consider GreenSky's alternative arguments. The Plaintiffs' certified class action alleges GreenSky, which partners with contractors and banks to provide point-of-sale loans to consumers, charges fees in violation of California consumer protection statutes. The Court previously concluded "GreenSky is entitled to summary judgment on all performance fee-related claims" because the Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss Plaintiff David Ferguson's claims related to performance fees and did not present evidence Plaintiff Heidi Barnes was injured by performance fees. Plaintiffs subsequently asserted the California Credit Services Act ("Credit Act") permits them to "recoup the money they paid toward performance fees -- even if those fees did not injure Plaintiffs.” The Credit Act does not permit recovery of amounts paid that did not result in injury and are unrelated to the injury conferring statutory standing to sue. The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against GreenSky, alleging the company’s business practices violate California consumer protection statutes. GreenSky operates as a technology company in the payment, credit, and commerce space. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5BWnC5 at no extra charge.[CC] GUIDECRAFT INC: Youngren Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN YOUNGREN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Guidecraft, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13299 (N.D. Ill., October 30, 2025) is a civil rights action against Guidecraft for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website https://guidecraft.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On July 30, 2025, the Plaintiff began searching online for kid's desk, and during his search, he discovered the Defendant's website, Guidecraft.com. While he attempted to complete a purchase, he encountered accessibility issues while navigating the website. Many interactive elements had poor and non-descriptive names, making it difficult and confusing for him to understand their function. The Plaintiff asserts that the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by him and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccessible drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Guidecraft's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Guidecraft, Inc. operates the website that offers a range of products, including desks, chairs, bookshelves, STEM-based toys, wooden Montessori toys, building toys, classroom furniture, and outdoor toys.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (716) 281-5496 E-mail: mohrenberger@ealg.law HAIER US: Court Dismisses Duvall Class Suit ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK DUVALL, et al., v. HAIER US APPLIANCE SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-02794-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss as to all Counts. As all the pleading shortcomings this Order identifies are curable, the Court grants leave to amend the claims already pled; the Plaintiffs may not add new claims or the defendants without further leave of court. A joint case management conference statement is due one week in advance. The Plaintiffs do not plausibly allege an express warranty based on advertising and product information because Plaintiffs do not specify what statements form the basis of their claim. The Plaintiffs' SAC contains a URL to a website describing the Class Appliance, but the URL appears 60 paragraphs before the generic allegations that Plaintiffs "researched the Class Appliance prior to purchase, including by viewing GE Appliances' product information and advertisements online." Thus, Plaintiffs' complaint does not sufficiently allege what statements created an express warranty and upon which Plaintiffs relied. The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action arising from allegedly defective two-in-one combination washer dryer appliances manufactured by Defendant GE Appliances. In their Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege Defendant failed to disclose a defect in the Class Appliances' lint trap, which "causes the Class Appliances to suffer excessive lint buildup that is difficult to remove, greatly diminishing the effectiveness of the dryer and leaving its contents wet.” Plaintiffs further assert the Defendant "refuses to honor its warranties to Class Members by declining to repair the known defect." Haier provides home equipment. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wTbd14 at no extra charge.[CC] HARMONY HOME: Filing for Class Cert. in Alison Due June 26, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW ALISON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HARMONY HOME BUYER, LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-01169-JWB-RES (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Rachel E. Schwartz entered a scheduling order as follows: The Defendant's settlement counter-proposal: Nov. 7, 2025 All discovery completed: June 5, 2026 The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: June 26, 2026 Deadline for: (i) Defendant's opposition to July 17, 2026 class certification motion; and (ii) the Defendant to file any motions challenging admissibility of Plaintiffs' expert testimony: Deadline for: (i) the Plaintiffs' reply in Aug. 14, 2026 support of class certification motion; (ii) the Plaintiffs' motion challenging admissibility of the Defendant's expert testimony; and (iii) the Plaintiffs' opposition to the Defendant's motions challenging admissibility of the Plaintiffs' expert testimony: Deadline for: (i) the Defendant's opposition Sept. 4, 2026 to the Plaintiffs' motion challenging admissibility of expert testimony and (ii) the Defendant's reply in support of the Defendant's motion challenging admissibility of the Plaintiffs' expert testimony: The Plaintiffs' reply in support of the Sept. 18, 2026 Plaintiffs' motion challenging admissibility of the Defendant's expert testimony: Harmony is a real estate solutions company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EdHFHf at no extra charge.[CC] HOMETOGO INTERNATIONAL: Kishnani Sues Over Data Broker Software --------------------------------------------------------------- KIEREN KISHNANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOMETOGO INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-10446 (C.D. Cal., October 30, 2025) arises from the Defendants' installation and use of data broker software without obtaining consent in violation of the California Trap and Trace Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant uses data broker software on its website, https://www.hometogo.com, to secretly collect data about a website visitor's computer, location, and browsing habits. The data broker software then compiles this data and correlates that data with extensive external records it already has about most Californians in order to learn the identity of the website user. Specifically, the Defendant has installed the Data Broker Software Development Kits of Criteo S.A. and Outbrain Inc. on its website. The data brokers took Plaintiff's information and used it to further profile Plaintiff, with the objective of monetizing this data by selling or licensing it to other entities, including law enforcement and government agencies, alleges the suit. HomeToGo International, Inc. actively markets vacation rentals to California citizens and individuals including a large number of vacation rentals located in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-927 E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com eshapiro@taulersmith.com HOYT ARCHERY: Vale Suit Transferred to D. Colorado -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jake Vale, and all others similarly situated v. Hoyt Archery, Inc., Archery Trade Association, Inc., BowTech, Inc., BPS Direct LLC, Cabela's LLC, Jay's Sports, Inc., Kinsey's Outdoors, Inc., Lancaster Archery Supply, Inc., Mathews Archery, Inc., NeuIntel LLC, Precision Shooting Equipment, Inc, Trackstreet, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-03110 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on Oct. 30, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03447-PAB-TPO to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Hoyt Archery -- https://hoyt.com/ -- is an American manufacturer of recurve and compound bows located in Salt Lake City, Utah.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee Albert, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave., Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Phone: (212) 682-5340 Fax: (212) 884-0988 Email: lalbert@glancylaw.com - and - Lee Owen, Esq. Vildan A. Teske, Esq. TESKE LAW PPLC 80 South Eighth St, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 767-0523 HUSQVARNA PROFESSIONAL: Settles Trimmers' Suit for $550,000 ----------------------------------------------------------- Consumers who purchased a Husqvarna gas-powered grass string trimmer with model numbers 130C, 130L or 330LK on or before Nov. 13, 2023, may be eligible to claim a $45 voucher from a class action settlement. Husqvarna Professional Products Inc. agreed to pay up to $550,000 to settle a class action lawsuit alleging certain gas-powered grass string trimmers sold between October 2021 and November 2023 were defective and could pose a fire hazard. Husqvarna recalled the trimmers in February 2024. Who is eligible to file a claim? Class members must meet all of the following criteria: -- They purchased a Husqvarna gas-powered grass string trimmer with one of these model numbers: -- 130C (SKU # 970514301, 970514302, 970514303, 970694601 or 970694701) -- 130L (SKU # 970514401, 970514402, 970514403, 970694801 or 970694901) -- 330LK (SKU # 970514501, 970514502, 970514503, 970514504 or 970545001) -- They purchased the trimmer on or before Nov. 13, 2023. -- They brought or will bring their trimmer to an authorized Husqvarna dealer for a free recall repair between Oct. 3, 2025, and Jan. 2, 2026. The settlement administrator used Husqvarna's records to identify class members. Those who received a settlement notice by mail or email likely qualify. Purchasers or owners who had the Consumer Product Safety Commission recall repair (Release Number: 24-113) performed on their trimmer(s) on or before Oct. 3, 2025, do not qualify for the settlement. How much can class members receive? Eligible class members can receive: -- A $45 voucher for each qualifying grass trimmer provided they bring it in for recall repair between Oct. 3, 2025, and Jan. 2, 2026, and submit a claim by Jan. 2, 2026 -- Class members can use the vouchers at Husqvarna authorized dealers or online. They are transferable, can be combined with other Husqvarna promotions and expire three years from the date Husqvarna issued them. -- A one-year extension to the limited product warranty for trimmers repaired within one year of Oct. 3, 2025, (this benefit is automatic; no claim form is required) -- A three-year extension of the limited warranty for parts and labor on the ignition module for trimmers repaired within one year of Oct. 3, 2025 (this benefit is also automatic) How to claim settlement benefits To claim settlement benefits, class members must: -- Participate in the CPSC recall by bringing their trimmer to an authorized Husqvarna dealer for a free repair between Oct. 3, 2025, and Jan. 2, 2026 -- Then submit the online claim form or download, print and complete the PDF claim form and mail it to the settlement administrator. The claim deadline is Jan. 2, 2026. Settlement administrator's mailing address: Husqvarna Settlement, c/o RG/2 Claims Administration LLC, P.O. Box 59479 Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479 Consumers who own more than one qualifying trimmer may submit a claim for each unit by providing information for each one separately on the claim form. Is proof or documentation required to submit a claim? Yes. Class members must attach dealer-provided proof of delivery for the recall repair. This documentation confirms they brought the trimmer in for the required recall repair during the claim period. They must provide details about the trimmer, including the SKU and serial number, date of purchase, date of repair and the name and address of the repair facility. Class members who have more than one trimmer must provide information for each unit. Payout options (how the class members can get paid) Class members can select to receive their vouchers by email or mail on the claim form. Settlement fund breakdown The settlement fund covers: -- Settlement administration costs: To be determined -- Attorneys' fees and expenses: Up to $550,000 -- Service award to class representative: $2,000 -- Payments to eligible class members: Value of vouchers and warranty extensions Important dates -- Deadline to opt out: Dec. 2, 2025 -- Deadline to file a claim: Jan. 2, 2026 -- Fairness hearing: Feb. 2, 2026 When is the Husqvarna grass trimmer settlement payout date? The settlement administrator will distribute vouchers after it processes all claims and the court grants final approval of the settlement. Why is there a class action settlement? The class action lawsuit alleged certain Husqvarna gas-powered grass string trimmers were defective and could pose a fire hazard due to electrical sparks or arcing, especially if gasoline was present. Although Husqvarna denied any wrongdoing, the company agreed to settle the lawsuit to resolve the claims and provide benefits to affected customers. The parties reached the settlement after Husqvarna conducted a recall in cooperation with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, but the plaintiffs argued the recall remedy was insufficient. Settlement Open for Claims Award: $45 per trimmer Deadline: January 2, 2026[GN] HYUNDAI AUTOEVER: Kantrowitz Investigates Data Breach Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kantrowitz, Goldhamer, & Graifman, P.C. is actively investigating a data breach at Hyundai AutoEver America LLC (HAEA) involving a cyberattack that exposed sensitive customer information. HAEA is an automotive technology company and a subsidiary of Hyundai Motor Group. On or about March 1, 2025, HAEA detected unauthorized activity in its computer system. Following an investigation, HAEA discovered that certain personal information of its customers had been compromised. HAEA did not begin notifying customers of the breach until October 30, 2025, more than seven months following the incident. Because this information could be used for identity theft and fraud, HAEA prevented customers from taking immediate steps to protect their sensitive personal information from further harm. Compromised information may include: -- Names -- Social Security Numbers -- Driver's License Numbers If you have received a NOTICE OF DATA BREACH regarding this incident and wish to discuss your rights or possible participation in a class action lawsuit, contact class action attorneys: Melissa R. Emert, Esq. Gary S. Graifman, Esq. Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C. 135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Montvale, NJ 07645 Phone: (866) 896-0935 Email: memert@kgglaw.com ggraifman@kgglaw.com [GN] HYUNDAI MOTOR: Hageman Can File Class Cert Bid Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brenda Hageman, et al., v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 8:23-cv-01045-HDV-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vera entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' application for leave to file under seal motion for class certification and exhibits in support. Having considered the Application and all responses thereto, the Court orders that the following documents may be filed under sea the following Documents: Exhibit B(Highlighted portions) Exhibit D(Highlighted portions) Exhibit E(Highlighted portions) Exhibit F Exhibit K(Highlighted portions) Exhibit M Exhibit N Exhibit R Exhibit S(Highlighted portions) Exhibit T Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification (Highlighted portions) The Declaration of Stephen Taylor in Support of Motion for Class Certification (Highlighted portions) Hyundai is the operating subsidiary that oversees all operations of Hyundai Motor Company in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kYERGt at no extra charge.[CC] INNOVAGE VIRGINIA: Conditional Cert. of Nurse Employee Class Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA M. WEST, For herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. INNOVAGE VIRGINIA PACE, II, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00060-EWH-DEM (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional certification of the following class: "All nurse employees paid hourly who worked at the Newport News office of Defendant all or part of the three years immediately preceding June 7, 2025 through the entry of judgment in this case, and generally worked over 40 hours per week, including overtime hours, for which they were not fully compensated." InnovAge offers all-inclusive care to seniors in Virginia. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MqlxMn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Colt North, Esq. THE CONSUMER & EMPLOYEE RIGHTS LAW FIRM, P.C. 5629 George Washington Memorial Hwy, Suite D Yorktown, VA 23692 Telephone: (757) 873-1010 Facsimile: (757) 873-8375 E-mail: cnorthlaw@aol.com INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Handal Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirms the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint in the lawsuit entitled ALEJANDRO HANDAL, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated; MICHAEL V. MALLOZZI, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated; STEPHEN R. FORRESTER, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, INC.; PAUL SMITHERS; CATHERINE HASTINGS; ALAN D. GOLD; BENJAMIN C. REGIN; Alejandro Handal; Stephen R. Forrester, Appellants, Case No. 24-2829 (3d Cir.). The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, D.C. Civil No. 2:22-cv-02359 (District Judge: Honorable Evelyn Padin). The Third Circuit panel consists of Chief Judge Michael A. Chagares, Circuit Judge Tamika R. Montgomery-Reeves, and Circuit Judge Theodore A. McKee. Judge Montgomery-Reeves wrote the Opinion of the Court. In this case, Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., a real estate investment trust, was defrauded of millions of dollars by one of its tenants, a company called Kings Garden. After discovering the fraud, Innovative sued Kings Garden, alleging that Kings Garden bore hallmarks of a Ponzi scheme. According to the Opinion, as often happens after an announcement of corporate trauma, a group of stockholders brought a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Their Second Amended Complaint asserts that Kings Garden's fraud and Innovative's failure to stop it rendered certain statements false or misleading. And when the market discovered the statements were false or misleading, Innovative's stock price declined, injuring the company's stockholders. But corporate trauma alone does not constitute securities fraud, and neither does ordinary negligence, Judge Montgomery-Reeves says. To plead claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, a plaintiff must identify a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by a defendant or statements that were false or misleading by omission. Because the stockholders here chose the latter course, they had to identify specific statements and plead with particularity that those statements were false or misleading at the time they were made. Then, for any statement so pleaded, the stockholders had to state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the statement's maker acted with scienter. Judge Montgomery-Reeves finds the stockholders did not meet those conditions. Many of the challenged statements are opinions--and although those opinions plausibly were ill-advised or wrong, such qualities do not make them fraudulent under the securities laws, Judge Montgomery-Reeves opines. Other statements simply are not false or misleading on the facts alleged. And while one statement is plausibly alleged to be false or misleading, the facts pleaded do not yield a strong inference that the statement's maker uttered it with scienter. As such, Judge Montgomery-Reeves holds that the underlying corporate conduct and injury could not sustain any claim under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and the District Court properly dismissed the Complaint with prejudice. Accordingly, the Panel affirms the District Court's judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/5n7ukx54 from GovInfo.gov. Michael A. Cohen -- mcohen@rosenlegal.com -- ROSEN LAW FIRM, in New York, NY 10016; Jacob A. Goldberg -- jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com -- Gonen Haklay -- ghaklay@rosenlegal.com -- ROSEN LAW FIRM, in Jenkintown, PA 19046, Counsel for Appellants Alejandro Handal and Stephen R. Forrester. Andrew A. Howell -- ahowell@foley.com -- Stacy R. Obenhaus -- sobenhaus@foley.com -- FOLEY & LARDNER, in Dallas, TX 75201, Counsel for Appellees Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Paul Smithers, Catherine Hastings, Alan D. Gold, and Benjamin C. Regin. INSPIRE MEDICAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due January 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Inspire Medical Systems, Inc. ("Inspire Medical" or the "Company") (NYSE: INSP) and reminds investors of the January 5, 2026 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com. As detailed below, the complaint alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose key facts about Inspire V, including the actual market demand for the device and whether the company had taken the steps necessary to successfully launch it. Defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements that led investors to believe demand for Inspire V was strong and that Company had taken the necessary steps for a successful launch. On August 4, 2025, Inspire Medical Systems announced significant setbacks in the launch of its new Inspire V device. The company revealed that the rollout was taking much longer than expected because many treatment centers had not yet completed the required training, contracting, and onboarding needed to begin using the product. Inspire also disclosed billing and reimbursement challenges, explaining that although Medicare had approved a CPT code for Inspire V, the necessary software updates for claims processing did not go into effect until July 1. As a result, implanting centers could not bill for procedures before that date and instead continued using the older Inspire IV system. In addition to these logistical and reimbursement problems, Inspire reported that the Inspire V launch was suffering from weak demand and excess inventory. These issues forced the company to sharply cut its 2025 earnings guidance by more than 80%. Following these revelations, Inspire's stock price fell more than 32% in a single day -- from $129.95 per share on August 4, 2025, to $87.91 per share on August 5, 2025 -- wiping out approximately $1.2 billion in market capitalization. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Inspire Medical's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. To learn more about the Inspire Medical class action, go to www.faruqilaw.com/INSP or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). [GN] INSPIRE MEDICAL: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Misleading Statements --------------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises Inspire Medical, ("Inspire" or the "Company") (NYSE: INSP) investors off a class action on behalf of investors that bought securities between August 6, 2024 and August 4, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Inspire investors have until January 5, 2025 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, by phone 844-767-8529 or email: lesley@portnoylaw.com, to discuss their legal rights, or join the case via https://portnoylaw.com/inspire-medical. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for pursuing claims to recover their losses. The Inspire Medical class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Inspire V launch was a disaster because demand for Inspire V was poor, as providers had significant amounts of surplus inventory and were reluctant to transition to a new treatment; and (ii) contrary to defendants' statements assuring investors that Inspire Medical had taken all necessary steps to ensure a successful launch and, later, that the launch was in fact proceeding successfully -- Inspire Medical had failed to complete basic tasks that were essential predicates to launch. The Inspire Medical investor class action alleges that on August 4, 2025, Inspire Medical revealed that the Inspire V launch was facing an "elongated timeframe" due to a number of previously undisclosed headwinds. "[M]any centers did not complete the training, contracting and onboarding criteria required prior to the purchase and implant of [Inspire V]," the complaint alleges. Defendants further admitted that, although Inspire V's CPT code had been approved for Medicare patients, "software updates for claims submissions and processing did not take effect until July 1," which meant that "implanting centers would not be able to bill for those procedures until July 1," the lawsuit alleges. Finally, the lawsuit claims that investors also learned for the first time that the Inspire V rollout was plagued by poor demand resulting from excess inventory. As a result, Inspire Medical reduced its 2025 earnings guidance by more than 80%, the Inspire Medical investor class action alleges. On this news, the price of Inspire Medical's common stock declined more than 32%, the complaint alleges. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims caused by corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Portnoy Law Firm (310) 692-8883 lesley@portnoylaw.com www.portnoylaw.com [GN] INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Parties Seek to Amend Scheduling Order ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSE L. EPPERSON, Individually and as class representative for all similarly situated persons, v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY ("IP"), KERR-MCGEE CHEMICAL CORPORATION, KERR-MCGEE OPERATING CORPORATION, and BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00053-JDC-CBW (W.D. La.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion to amend scheduling order for class certification hearing. he Defendant BNSF has no objection to the attached proposed second amended scheduling order for class certification hearing. The amended scheduling order is sought in good faith and not intended to cause improper delay. This amended scheduling order will also not materially impede the progress of this case or prejudice the parties. IP is a provider of sustainable packaging solutions. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OPwTkW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Perry R. Sanders, Jr., Esq. THE SANDERS LAW FIRM, LLC 400 Broad Street Lake Charles, LA 70601 Telephone: (719) 630-1556 E-mail: perry@perrysanders.com - and - David L. Wallace, Esq. 518 North Pine Street DeRidder, LA 70634 Telephone: (337) 462-0473 E-mail: wnblawoffice@bellsouth.net - and - Andrew K. Glenn, Esq. Trevor J. Welch, Esq. Jason Rotstein, Esq. Nathan J. Ades, Esq. GLENN AGRE BERGMAN & FUENTES LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 970-1600 E-mail: aglenn@glennagre.com twelch@glennagre.com jrotstein@glennagre.com nades@glennagre.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel J. Mulholland, Esq. Joshua J. Metcalf, Esq. T. Joel Fyke, Esq. Taylor D. Waxley, Esq. FORMAN WATKINS & KRUTZ LLP 210 East Capitol Street, Suite 2200 Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 960-8600 Facsimile: (601) 960-8613 E-mail: LAEService@formanwatkins.com - and - Kyle L. Gideon, Esq. Kevin M. Dills, Esq. DAVIDSON, MEAUX, SONNIER, McELLIGOTT, FONTENOT, GIDEON & EDWARDS, LLP 900 South College Road – Suite 100 Lafayette, LA 70503 Telephone: (337) 237-1600 Facsimile: (337) 237-3676 INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces Consolidated Product Litigation --------------------------------------------------------- Intuitive Surgical, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2025, that it is facing a consolidated class action captioned "In Re: da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation." On January 23, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held a hearing on plaintiff's motion for class certification, and on March 31, 2025, it granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. Three class action complaints were filed against the company in the Northern District of California Court alleging antitrust allegations relating to the service and repair of certain instruments manufactured by the company. A complaint by Larkin Community Hospital was filed on May 20, 2021, a complaint by Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and King County Public Hospital District No. 1 was filed on July 6, 2021, and a complaint by Kaleida Health was filed on July 8, 2021. The court has consolidated the Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and King County Public Hospital District No. 1 and Kaleida Health cases with the Larkin Community Hospital case, which is now a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint been filed on behalf of each plaintiff named in the earlier-filed cases. On January 14, 2022, Kaleida Health voluntarily dismissed itself as a party to this case. On January 18, 2022, the company filed an answer against the plaintiffs in this matter, and discovery has commenced. With regard to this class action case, on September 7, 2023, the court heard argument on the parties' respective motions for summary judgment and motions related to expert testimony. On March 31, 2024, the court granted-in-part and denied-in-part plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on certain market definition issues, and denied Intuitive's motion on the antitrust claims. In denying Intuitive's motion, the court declined to decide whether third-party companies were required to obtain 510(k) clearance for their services with respect to its "EndoWrists," and in the absence of a formal ruling from the FDA on that question denied Intuitive's motion for summary judgment challenging plaintiffs' standing on that ground. There were additional rulings on the expert witness issues as well. In the summary judgment order, the court ruled with plaintiffs that the da Vinci robot and EndoWrist instruments occupy separate product markets for antitrust purposes. The court also ruled that there is an antitrust aftermarket for the repair and replacement of EndoWrist instruments, and that Intuitive holds monopoly power in that aftermarket. The court denied summary judgment for plaintiffs on the issue of whether soft-tissue surgical robots constitute a relevant antitrust market or are part of a larger market that includes laparoscopic and open surgery for antitrust purposes. On July 30, 2024, the court granted Intuitive’s motion for reconsideration, vacating those portions of the court's March 31, 2024 Order granting summary judgment as to the definition of a U.S. market for EndoWrist repair and replacement and Intuitive's market power in such a market. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets da Vinci (R) surgical systems and the Ion (R) endoluminal system based in California. IRIS USA: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Pet-Food Containers ------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Gutman, writing for MSN, reports that curiosity killed the cat, the adage goes, but in the case of Ace the kitten, the fault lies with a defective pet-food container, according to a proposed class-action lawsuit filed in Philadelphia's federal court. Valentina Mallozzi, of Montgomery County, says in the complaint that, in July, Ace managed to get into a locked Iris pet food container she ordered from Amazon. But once the 3-pound kitten was inside, the airtight lid dropped and locked Ace inside. The lawsuit, filed last week, accuses Iris USA of creating a defective product that it markets as safe for pets. The complaint says Mallozzi is one of many pet owners who tragically lost their cat to an Iris container. The complaint aims to represent all people in the United States who purchased an Iris container. The complaint does not include an estimate of how many people are included in the class, or how much money Iris would owe each person. Iris USA, a subsidiary of Japanese plastics manufacturer Iris Ohyama, did not respond to a request for comment. Mallozzi bought the Iris airtight stackable containers for $29.99 from Amazon in March, the complaint says. The containers have a locking mechanism that Iris claimed is designed to "keep pets from sneaking a second or even third breakfast with the secure locking latch," according to the complaint. The problem, the suit says, is that cats can open the latch from outside, climb in, and get trapped as the mechanism automatically locks them in. The airtight seal that keeps pet food fresh makes the trap deadly, as a "pet will suffocate within a few minutes," the complaint says. The lawsuit cites posts from the Prevent Pet Suffocation Facebook group in which cat owners share stories about their beloved pets getting trapped in an Iris container. One post included in the complaint shares the story of Baby Bear, a family's cat who was found dead in an Iris container by an 8-year-old girl. "My cat, Max, also suffocated in an Iris pet food container," a woman responded. "I know the pain you're going through." Iris USA was put on notice, and not only by people on social media, the complaint says. In March, the Center for Pet Safety, a Virginia-based nonprofit, put out a report evaluating the risk food containers represent for pet suffocation that specifically calls out Iris. The latch mechanism on the lid "significantly increases the risk of pet suffocation," the report says. The lawsuit says the product should have come with a label warning of the suffocation risk for pets that can unlatch the lid. [GN] JM SMUCKER: Jeruchim Suit Seeks to File Class Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA JERUCHIM and MELISSA VARGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY and POST CONSUMER BRANDS, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-06913-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order allowing them to file under seal documents containing information or references to information that the Defendants designated as Confidential. The Plaintiffs state that the "compelling reasons" standard applies at class certification. The Plaintiffs request that the Court seal the following portions of the Plaintiffs' reply memorandum in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: Page 8, lines 13 through 22; Page 13, lines 1 through 7; Page 13, lines 20 through 25; and Page 14, lines 19 through 26. Each of the above-listed portions of the Plaintiffs' reply memorandum that the Plaintiffs seek to seal depict, reference, rely, and/or discuss upon information produced by the Defendants and designated by the Defendants as "confidential" pursuant to the Parties’ stipulated protective order entered by the Court JM is an American manufacturer of food and beverage products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hfJQVm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Julia K. Venditti, Esq. Karen B. Valenzuela, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jvenditti@bursor.com kvalenzuela@bursor.com KANAWHA COUNTY, VA: Plaintiffs' Class Cert Bid Tossed ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as G.T., by his parents Michelle and Jamie T. on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, et al., v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE COUNTY OF KANAWHA, Case No. 2:20-cv-00057 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Irene Berger entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The new class definition proposed by the Plaintiffs does not present common claims under the analysis required by the Fourth Circuit opinion remanding this case. Therefore, the Court finds that the motion for class certification must be denied. The Plaintiffs request certification of a proposed class of: "All Kanawha County School students identified by Kanawha County School District as having disabilities and needing behavior supports but who are not being provided with appropriate therapies to build social skills and self regulation." They contend that their revised proposed class "satisfies the Fourth Circuit's guidance on class certification in this case." The Court imposed a brief timeline for supplementing discovery and briefing class certification following remand. The parties had limited time to exchange discovery and resolve disputes prior to briefing the renewed motion for class certification. The Court finds that Dr. Elliott’s supplemental report, primarily filed as a rebuttal to the Defendant's expert reports, should be admitted. Any prejudice can be cured by permitting the Defendant’s sur-response. The Court entered an order that the Defendant's Motion to Strike, or, in the Alternative, Motion for Leave to File Sur-Response be granted to the extent it requests leave to file a sur-response, and orders that the Defendant's Sur-Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification be filed. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant violates the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the West Virginia Human Rights Act, by failing to adequately support students with disabilities. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated Oct. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nrPRVC at no extra charge.[CC] KBR INC: Faces Class Suit Over Artificially Inflated Stock Prices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sheryl Sheth, writing for TIP RANKS, reports that a class action lawsuit was filed against KBR Inc. KBR -0.45% on September 19, 2025. The plaintiffs (shareholders) alleged that they bought KBR stock at artificially inflated prices between May 6, 2025, and June 19, 2025 (Class Period) and are now seeking compensation for their financial losses. Investors who bought KBR stock during that period can click here to learn about joining the lawsuit. KBR is a global engineering and technology company that specializes in providing innovative solutions for the aerospace, defense, and energy sectors. HomeSafe Alliance (HomeSafe) is a joint company, in which KBR owns 72%. Before the Class Period, HomeSafe won a contract from the U.S. Department of Defense's Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) to help military members and their families move. KBR's claims about HomeSafe's current and future potential are at the heart of the current complaint. KBR's Misleading Claims According to the lawsuit, KBR and two of its senior officers (the Defendants) repeatedly made false and misleading public statements throughout the Class Period. In particular, they are accused of omitting truthful information about the status of HomeSafe's contract with TRANSCOM from SEC filings and related material. In an earnings call held at the beginning of the Class Period, the CEO said that the HomeSafe contract had grown rapidly during the first quarter, the company's operations improved significantly, and they were making good progress with increasing customer satisfaction. During the question-and-answer part of the call, KBR's CEO said that the company was very pleased with how things were progressing. KBR's partnership with TRANSCOM was excellent, and the company was eager to move forward with the outstanding and transformative program. During the same call, when responding to another analyst's question, KBR's CEO said that customer satisfaction had risen to just under 90%, and it had improved significantly over the past several weeks. Finally, in response to yet another question during the same call, the company's CEO said they were fully aligned with TRANSCOM, who had gone to Congress and publicly reaffirmed its commitment to the program. KBR was also completely committed and remained very confident about the program's future. However, subsequent events (detailed below) revealed that the defendants had failed to inform investors that TRANSCOM had material concerns with HomeSafe's ability to fulfill the global household goods contract. Plaintiffs' Arguments The plaintiffs maintain that the defendants deceived investors by lying and withholding critical information about the company's business practices and prospects during the Class Period. Importantly, the defendants allegedly misled investors that the HomeSafe-TRANSCOM partnership was running smoothly without any issues and would ramp up in future quarters. The information became clear in a press release issued by HomeSafe after the market closed on June 19, 2025. HomeSafe announced that it received notice from TRANSCOM on June 18, 2025, terminating the Global Household Goods Contract. HomeSafe stated that it had performed to the fullest extent possible given the challenges it faced, and disagreed with TRANSCOM's reasons for ending the program. The next day, KBR also issued a press release before the market opened. In the release, KBR stated that it had been working with HomeSafe and would continue to do so to fulfill all obligations to TRANSCOM and support the military service members and families served by the program. Following the news, KBR stock fell nearly 7% on June 20. To conclude, the defendants misled investors about HomeSafe's ongoing contract with TRANSCOM and the future potential. Due to these issues, KBR stock has lost 25.7% year-to-date. [GN] KOHL'S INC: Mejico Sues Over Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail ---------------------------------------------------------- Brittney Mejico, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. KOHL'S, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 25CU058386C (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., Oct. 28, 2025), is brought as a result of the Defendant's deceptive unsolicited commercial e-mail, a/k/a "spam" in violation of California's robust Anti-Spam Law. The Plaintiff recently received a deceptive spam at her California email address which contained a link to www.kohls.com, and in which the subject line of the e-mail stated in relevant part "$10 off at Kohl's." In reality, the advertisement was false – Plaintiff promptly clicked on the link and there was no such freestanding discount that did not require a significant purchase. The promise of a discount was thus literally false and entirely illusory. A reasonable consumer, acting under ordinary circumstances, would likely be deceived into clicking through and considering a purchase based on the expectation of a discount that was not available, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's e-mail address is a "California e-mail address." Kohl's is a retailer that promotes its products through unlawful spamming.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com KRAFT HEINZ: Class Cert Bid Filing in Horne Due Jan. 7, 2027 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN HORNE, v. THE KRAFT HEINZ COMPANY, Case No. 6:25-cv-01630-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Mendoza entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Action or Event Deadline Mandatory initial disclosures: Dec. 1, 2025 Motion to join a party or amend pleadings: Dec. 2, 2025 Completion of discovery and motion to Jan. 29, 2027 compel discovery: Class Certification: Jan. 7, 2027 Dispositive and Daubert motions: Mar. 2, 2027 Mediation: Feb. 12, 2027 Joint pretrial meeting: June 25, 2027 Kraft is an American multinational food company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8XGyUs at no extra charge.[CC] KRISTI NOEM: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Response ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bello-Rubio, et al., v. Kristi Noem, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-23665 (S.D. Fla., Filed Aug. 14, 2025), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Becerra entered an order granting the Defendants Motion for Extension of Time of 60 Days to Respond to the Motion for Class Certification. The nature of suit states Immigration -- Habeas Corpus -- Alien Detainee.[CC] KRISTI NOEM: Parties Seek Class Cert Briefing Schedule ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRESCIA GARRO PINCHI, et al., v. KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security, et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-05632-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting stipulation to briefing schedule for the Respondents' response to the Petitioners amended complaint, motion for class certification, and motion to stay: Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12, Petitioners and Respondents stipulate and request the Court to grant the parties' proposed schedule for the Respondents' response to the Petitioners first amended complaint, the Petitioners' motion to stay, and the Petitioners' motion to certify class. The parties conferred and have agreed to the following proposed briefing schedule: 1. The Respondents will file their response and opposition to the Petitioners' first amended complaint, motion to stay, and motion to certify class by Nov. 14, 2025. 2. The Petitioners will file their reply by Nov. 24, 2025. 3. The hearing on Petitioners' motions remains set for Dec. 9, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. The parties request the Court to grant their stipulation. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DZnXdd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bree Bernwanger, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 621-2493 E-mail: bbernwanger@aclunc.org The Defendants are represented by: Craig H. Missakian, Esq. Pamela T. Johann, Esq. Elizabeth D. Kurlan, Esq. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 450 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102-3495 Telephone: (415) 436-7298 Facsimile: (415) 436-6748 E-mail: elizabeth.kurlan@usdoj.gov LAUNDRY DEPOT: Court Decertifies Class in Leong ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NYOK MOY LEONG, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. LAUNDRY DEPOT, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-03545-HG-PK (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Hector Gonzalez entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to decertify the class. The Plaintiff's counsel is ordered to provide notice of decertification to all class members. The notice should explain their rights to pursue their individual claims and the fact that the statute of limitations is no longer tolled. The Plaintiff's counsel is directed to submit a proposed decertification notice to the court by Nov. 4, 2025. The Court finds that this action may not proceed by way of a class because the requirements of Rule 23 are not satisfied. The Court finds that "the prejudice from inadequate representation is greater," and decertification, coupled with subsequent notice to the class, preserves class members' right to seek redress on their claims in the future, a right that class members could have lost due to "the res judicata effect of class action judgments." The Plaintiff has asserted claims for unpaid wages and other violations of the New York Labor Law (the "NYLL") and the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") against the Defendants, a group of laundromats that the Plaintiff alleges operated as a single enterprise. Laundry offers a wide range of self-service and drop-off laundry options. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Oct. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KuXY26 at no extra charge.[CC] LEAD DOG: Slendak Wins Conditional Cert Bid ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUSSELL ANDREW SLENDAK, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. LEAD DOG PIZZA, INC., and JOHN ECKBURG, Case No. 3:24-cv-03988-MGL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Mary Geiger Lewis entered an order granting Slendak's motion for conditional certification. Not later than 14 days after the entry of this Order, the parties shall conference and submit (1) a proposed consent amended scheduling order and (2) a proposed consent amended notice, the Court says. The Court agrees with Slendak that it is unable to conclude this action raises any unique concerns warranting the appointment of a third-party administrator. Indeed, as Slendak maintains, his counsel "regularly handles FLSA collective action notice projects and has systems in place to protect plaintiff[s'] privacy." The Plaintiff Slendak, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, brings this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), against the Defendants. Slendak was employed by the Defendants from July 2021 to October 2023 as a delivery driver at [their] Domino's store located in Augusta, Georgia. The Defendant is a local franchise of Domino's Pizza. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Oct. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KLD8Tg at no extra charge.[CC] LEAFFILTER NORTH: "Wright" TCPA Case Transferred to N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Lawrence Wright, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LeafFilter North, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:25-CV-01080-KM (M.D. Pa.), Judge Karoline Mehalchick of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted Defendant's motion to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). On May 18, 2023, Plaintiff registered his personal telephone on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. That following July, Plaintiff began receiving prerecorded calls and telemarketing text messages from LeafFilter, an Ohio corporation headquartered in Hudson, Ohio. On June 13, 2025, Plaintiff commenced this putative class action pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). According to the complaint, the purpose of LeafFilter's communications was to market its gutter protection products. Plaintiff never provided LeafFilter with his telephone number or gave any consent to receive these calls or text messages. Plaintiff brought two TCPA claims: (i) one claim alleging violation of the TCPA's prerecorded call provisions and (ii) one claim alleging violation of the TCPA's national do-not-call registry provisions. Further, Plaintiff sought to pursue these claims on behalf of the following putative nationwide classes: Prerecorded Call Class: Plaintiff and all persons within the United States to whose cellular telephone number Defendant placed (or had placed on its behalf) a prerecorded or artificial voice call from four years prior to the filing of the Complaint through the date of Certification. National Do Not Call Class: Plaintiff and all persons within the United States (1) to whose telephone number Defendant placed (or had placed on its behalf) two or more calls or text messages, (2) from four years prior to the filing of the Complaint to the date of certification, (3) for the purpose of encouraging the purchase of Defendant's products or services (4) in a 12-month period (5) when the telephone number to which the text messages were sent was on the National Do-Not-Call Registry at the time of the messages. On August 6, 2025, LeafFilter filed its answer to the complaint. On August 19, 2025, LeafFilter filed a motion to transfer the action to the Northern District of Ohio. LeafFilter requested that this matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The Court first determined whether venue would be proper in the transferee district. LeafFilter is incorporated and maintains its principal place of business in Hudson, Ohio, located in the Northern District of Ohio. Thus, Ohio has general personal jurisdiction over LeafFilter, so venue is proper in the Northern District of Ohio. Regarding the private interest factors, the Court found that because of the class action nature of this case, the first private interest factor favored transfer. In class actions, the plaintiff's choice is given less deference because the potential class members are scattered throughout the nation. Plaintiff failed to show that LeafFilter's telemarketing calls and messages targeted other Pennsylvania residents. Plaintiff also did not allege that anything apart from his receipt of the calls occurred in this district. The Court found that the third factor weighed in favor of transfer. Since the alleged injuries of the purported class members could be dispersed throughout various states, and the decisions that led to the telemarketing communications were made in Ohio, this factor weighed in favor of transfer. LeafFilter provided a signed declaration from an executive officer stating that all decisions regarding who to call, when to call and the content of the call are made in Hudson. The Court determined that the fourth factor supported transfer. While Plaintiff suggested that LeafFilter's financial condition, in comparison to Plaintiff's, allows the company to afford the inconvenience and cost of travel more easily, Plaintiff is one of hundreds of purported plaintiffs, and the inconvenience to him from litigating this case in Ohio would be slight in comparison. As representative of a putative class action, Plaintiff will likely play only a minimal role in litigation, if any at all. At oral argument, both parties agreed that the convenience of the witnesses carries the heaviest weight among the private factors. The Court found that because most of the identified witnesses in this case, which LeafFilter's declaration provided, reside in the Northern District of Ohio, this factor weighed in favor of transfer. LeafFilter stated that the staff members who create and oversee the consumer outreach predominantly reside in the Hudson, Ohio area. The signed declaration identified key employees and information involved in the underlying telemarketing program. These witnesses likely possess critical knowledge regarding the fundamental issues in this case. Regarding the public interest factors, the Court found that the second public interest factor favored transfer because this case is still in the early stages, and a transfer will not significantly disrupt the litigation or result in a waste of judicial resources. The Court also found that since LeafFilter is based in Hudson, Ohio, the Northern District of Ohio has a greater interest in adjudicating these putative class claims under federal law. Having considered all Jumara private and public interest factors, the Court concluded that the weight of the factors favored transfer. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to transfer venue pursuant to Section 1404(a) was granted. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MZSNun from PacerMonitor.com LENS.COM INC: Martin Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICKEY MARTIN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. LENS.COM, INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-60489-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion for leave to file motion for and memorandum in support of class certification under seal. The Plaintiff intends to file his Motion for and Memorandum in Support of Class Certification on Nov. 5, 2025, with supporting Exhibits. The proposed Motion and Memorandum (as well as its supporting exhibits) is based heavily on documents marked by Defendant as "CONFIDENTIAL" or "CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY EYES ONLY." For example, there are numerous references and discussions to the Defendant's financial statements and proprietary software throughout the Motion and Memorandum. Lens.com operates as a specialty online retailer. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7TX6Bt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Matthew Stephens, Esq. Robert G. Methvin, Jr., Esq. Courtney C. Gipson, Esq. METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 939-0199 Facsimile: (205) 939-0399 E-mail: mstephens@mtattorneys.com rgm@mtattorneys.com cgipson@mtattorneys.com - and - Joshua A. Migdal, Esq. LEVIN MIGDAL & GIBBS 7301 SW 57th Ct., Suite 515 Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 374-6617 E-mail: josh@lmgllp.com - and - Matthew Herman, Esq. MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC 3 N. Second Street, Suite 300 St. Charles, IL 60174 Telephone: (630) 797-6333 E-mail: mh@meyers-flowers.com LIBERTY MUTUAL: Faces Class Suit Over Robocall Consent Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tez Romero, writing for Insurance Business, reports that one of the nation's largest auto insurers is facing allegations it systematically violated federal telemarketing laws by deploying robocalls without proper consumer consent. Yevonne Powers filed a class-action lawsuit against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company on November 5, 2025, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, claiming the insurer made unauthorized prerecorded voice calls to her cell phone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Virginia's Telephone Privacy Protection Act. The lawsuit alleges Liberty has conducted prerecorded-voice call campaigns, robocalling many millions of consumers' residential and cellular telephones over the course of several years without proper consent. Instead of generating leads directly, the insurer allegedly relies on a complex chain of third-party vendors—purchasing phone numbers from lead aggregators, who themselves buy the information from lead generators operating consumer-facing websites. According to the filing, these lead generators collect personal information through websites where consumers enter their details ostensibly to request information. But the consent mechanisms Liberty relies upon allegedly bury the insurer's name among thousands of "industry partners" or "marketing partners" listed on separate webpages accessible only through hyperlinks. Powers' information allegedly came from ratemarketplace.com, operated by lead generator Plateau Data Services. Liberty purchased her lead on or about November 4, 2021, from lead aggregator All Web Leads. The filing states that upon information and belief, Liberty purchased more than 25,000 leads from Plateau Data Services on or after November 5, 2021, and attempted to robocall and text more than 20,000 of them. The website's consent disclosure referenced "5 Industry Partners" via a hyperlink. The filing notes the current hyperlink leads to approximately 7,000 entities, and based on the current linked page and industry practice, if there was a valid webpage linked at the time of the calls, it similarly listed thousands of "Industry Partners." Powers' phone number has been registered on the National Do Not Call Registry since approximately 2006, yet she allegedly received calls from Liberty. The allegations take a striking turn with claims that the underlying lead data appears fraudulent. According to tracking data from compliance company Jornaya, the lead shows Powers requested insurance information concerning either an Aston Martin DB9 or an Aston Martin Vanquish S—supercars Powers has never owned -- and the IP address traces to the Atlanta, Georgia area, whereas Powers lives in rural Virginia. Liberty allegedly reviews and approves each consent disclosure block for leads it purchases ahead of time to ensure the disclosures comport with its vision of what constitutes "consent" under the TCPA. The company relies upon Jornaya to assist in making sure it has the level of consent it previously approved and to keep track of consent disclosures. Yet the lawsuit suggests Liberty has struggled with lead quality before. The insurer sued All Web Leads -- the very aggregator that supplied Powers' lead -- on September 12, 2025, alleging the leads All Web Leads sold Liberty that were at issue in other litigation were invalid and that All Web Leads' sales of data to Liberty was unfair and deceptive. The proposed class action seeks to represent all US cell phone subscribers whom Liberty or a third party on its behalf called using artificial or prerecorded voice from four years prior to the filing through the date of class certification, where the originating lead generator website did not mention Liberty in the TCPA disclosures Jornaya logged. A second class would cover all persons whose residential cellular or landline numbers Liberty or someone on its behalf called from four years prior to filing through class certification, more than once in a twelve-month period for purposes of encouraging purchase of Liberty's consumer products or services, where the person's phone number had been registered with the National Do Not Call Registry for more than 31 days at the time of the call. Powers seeks statutory damages under the TCPA, which the statute allows to be trebled for willful or knowing violations. She also requests injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs. No determination has been made on the allegations. [GN] LIFE INSURANCE: Krimbow Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Danielle Krimbow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Life Insurance Company of the Southwest, Case No. 5:23-cv-04068-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on March 5, 2026, will move the Court to certify the class. Specifically, the Plaintiff requests the Court certify the class defined below pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for her claim under the California Unfair Competition Law: "All public employees of all California local school districts, community college districts, county offices of education, and state employees of a state employer under the uniform state payroll system, excluding the California State University System, eligible to participate in an annuity contract and custodial account as described in Section 403(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 who, in the period between June 26, 2019 and continuing through the date the class list is prepared, were invested in an indexed annuity 403(b) product issued by the Defendant and who paid rider fees that were not disclosed on 403bcompare.com." Accordingly, the case readily meets the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for the Plaintiff's claims of unlawful and unfair violations of the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has violated the "unlawful" and "unfair" prongs of the UCL by charging rider fees for their annuity plans that they did not disclose on the Website, in violation of Sections 25101 and 25107 of the Education Code. Life specializes in annuity and life insurance products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QP6djE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Michelle Drake, Esq. John G. Albanese, Esq. Ariana B. Kiener, Esq. Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq. Joshua P. Davis, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 E-mail: emdrake@bergermontague.com jalbanese@bergermontague.com akiener@bergermontague.com jhashmall@bergermontague.com jdavis@bergermontague.com - and - Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. Mark E. Thomson, Esq. Steven J. Eiden, Esq. Jennifer K. Lee, Esq. ENGSTROM LEE LLC 729 N. Washington Ave., Suite 600 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 305-8349 Facsimile: (612) 677-3050 E-mail: cengstrom@engstromlee.com mthomson@engstromlee.com seiden@engstromlee.com jlee@engstromlee.com LINDA MCMAHON: Bates Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Linda McMahon, et al. The case is styled as Jamica Bates, Meryl Blazer, Carissa Gillespie, Tamara Cesar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Linda McMahon, in her Official Capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Education; Equifax Information Serivces, LLC; Experian Information Solutions, Inc.; Transunion, LLC; Case No. 1:25-cv-06193-TWT-CCB (N.D. Ga., Oct. 29, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Linda Marie McMahon is an American politician, business executive, and former professional wrestling executive who has served as the 13th United States secretary of education since 2025.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Henry Childs, Esq. Kenneth Everett Barton, III, Esq. Michael Devlin Cooper, Esq. COOPER BARTON & COOPER, LLP 170 College Street Macon, GA 31201 Phone: (478) 841-9007 Fax: (478) 841-9002 Email: keb@cooperbarton.com mdc@cooperbarton.com MDL 2966: $3.48MM Awarded to Class Counsel in Xyrem Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re Xyrem (Sodium Oxybate) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:20-md-02966-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion granting attorneys' fees, expenses, and service awards. Class Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees of one-third of the Net Settlement Fund plus interest accrued on the amount and reimbursement for $3,482,847.12 in expenses. The four Class Representatives that were preparing to testify at trial are awarded service awards of $40,000 each and the two other Class Representatives are awarded $25,000 each for a combined total $210,000 in service awards. By June 15, 2026, Class Counsel shall submit to the Court a post-distribution report. A template of such a report may be obtained from the Court's website. Class Counsel here request one-third of the Net Settlement Fund3 plus interest accrued on the amount for their combined efforts over five years, including 57,523.9 attorney hours, litigating this case from beginning through to the eve of trial and eight months of settlement negotiations, foregoing other opportunities, and taking on the risk of no recovery. While this award is large, it is reasonable for the reasons set forth below including analysis under the lodestar method, the complexity of the case and Class Counsel's vigorous and effective litigation efforts, and the prevalence of one-third fee awards in similar cases. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vfzQWl at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2966: Class Settlement in Xyrem Antitrust Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Xyrem (Sodium Oxybate) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:20-md-02966-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order certifying the Settlement Class and granting final approval of the Settlement. The Court directs consummation of the Settlements pursuant to their terms. The Action is dismissed with prejudice, and the Court's judgment is final. For purposes of the Settlements only and this Order and Judgment, Class Plaintiffs have moved to certify the following Settlement Class: "All entities that paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price for brand or generic Xyrem in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, for consumption by their members, employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries, and other than for resale, during the time from Jan. 1, 2017, through and until the date the Court enters an order granting preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement." The proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under the Rule 23(e)(2) factors. e. The $195 million monetary payment represents a 46% recovery on the $422 million damages estimate that the Class was prepared to take to trial6 and is the second largest recovery on behalf of end-payers in generic drug delay cases in federal court in the past two decades. On August 15, 2025, Class Plaintiffs1 in this multi-district litigation moved for final approval of settlement agreements with Jazz Pharmaceuticals IrelandX Limited and Hikma Labs, Inc. (formerly known as Roxane Laboratories, Inc.), Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. (formerly known as West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp.), Eurohealth (USA), Inc., and Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC. On May 16, 2025, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlements, provisionally certified the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, and appointed A.B. Data as the Claims Administrator. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Rt6NJu at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3160: Swails Suit Consolidated in Archery Products Row ---------------------------------------------------------- The suit styled as TYLER SWAILS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARCHERY TRADE ASSOCIATION, INC; BOWTECH INC.; BPS DIRECT, LLC d/b/a BASS PRO SHOPS; CABELA'S LLC; DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC.; HOYT ARCHERY, INC.; JAY'S SPORTING GOODS; KINSEY'S OUTDOORS, INC.; LANCASTER ARCHERY SUPPLY, INC.; MATHEWS ARCHERY, INC.; and PRECISION SHOOTING EQUIPMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-03146, was transferred from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on October 30, 2025. The Clerk of the District Court for the District of Colorado assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03448-PAB-TPO to the proceeding. The Swails case has been consolidated in MDL No. 3160, IN RE: ARCHERY PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The suit arises from the Defendants' unlawful contract, combination or conspiracy to fix the prices for Archery Products in violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. According to the complaint, beginning no later than January 1, 2014, the Defendants conspired, colluded, and entered into an agreement to artificially raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize prices of Archery Products at supracompetitive levels. The Defendants' actions resulted in Plaintiff and members of the Class paying supracompetitive prices for Archery Products in the United States and its territories. The Defendants' conspiracy injured persons and entities that purchased Archery Products directly from the Manufacturer Defendants or their co-conspirators, including individuals who purchased Archery Products directly from one of the Retailer Defendants; or individuals who purchased Archery Products from retail stores that purchased Archery Products directly from one of the Manufacturer Defendants. But for Defendants' conspiracy and unlawful acts in furtherance, the Plaintiff and members of the Class would have paid less for Archery Products than they did during the Class Period. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and Class Members, seeks to recover the overcharges they paid. The Plaintiff purchased Archery Products that were manufactured by one or more of the Manufacturer Defendants and sold by one of the Retailer Defendants during the class period. Archery Trade Association, Inc. is the primary trade association for the Archery Products industry, and its membership consists of manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and other participants in the supply chain for the manufacture, distribution and sale of Archery Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq. Brant D. Penney, Esq. Roberta A. Yard, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD South 8th Street, Suite 90 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com b.penney@rwblawfirm.com r.yard@rwblawfirm.com META PLATFORMS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 17, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PURUSHOTHAMAN RAJARAM, et al., v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-02920-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beeler entered an order on case-management and trial dates: Case Event Filing Date/Disclosure Deadline/Hearing Date Date to seek leave to add parties Feb. 26, 2026 or amend the pleadings: Updated joint case-management- March 12, 2026 conference statement: Round one non-expert discovery April 9, 2026 completion date: Hearing/Further case-management July 2, 2026, Conference: at 9:30 a.m./11:00 a.m. Opening class-certification Sept. 17, 2026 motion/expert disclosures: Opposition and expert disclosures: Oct. 19, 2026 Reply: Nov. 19, 2026 Meta owns and operates several prominent social media platforms and communication services, including Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Messenger and WhatsApp. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KU6REl at no extra charge.[CC] META PLATFORMS: Plaintiff Seeks to Unseal Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (RE META PIXEL HEALTHCARE LITIGATION), Case No. 3:22-cv-03580-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order to unseal the motion for class certification and Exhibits 2-3, 11, 15, 17 and 19 in support of the motion for class certification. The Plaintiff contends that not only has Meta failed to rebut the strong presumption in favor of disclosure, but also the public and Movant have significant interests in the immediate disclosure of this information that far outweigh Meta's interest in keeping the information sealed. Boilerplate assertions that documents contain proprietary or private business information do not satisfy the "compelling reasons" burden. Meta has failed to identify fact-specific compelling reasons that support sealing the documents, the Plaintiff adds. In sum, there is a strong presumption in favor of unsealing the class certification motion and documents filed therewith. Defendant has failed to rebut this presumption. And, even if the presumption were rebutted, the Court should still unseal the documents because the public's and Movant's interest in disclosure of the information far outweighs those of Meta in keeping the information hidden. Therefore, the Court should grant this Motion and unseal the requested documents. Meta is an American multinational technology company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SuWgYR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Z. LaComb, Esq. Daniel J. Mogin, Esq. MOGIN LAW LLP 4225 Executive Square, Suite 600 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (619) 687-6611 Facsimile: (619) 687-6610 E-mail: tlacomb@moginlawllp.com dmogin@moginlawllp.com - and - Don Bivens, Esq. DON BIVENS PLLC 15169 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 205 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (602) 708-1450 E-mail: don@donbivens.com META PLATFORMS: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Opposition in Pixel Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re Meta Pixel Tax Filing Cases, Case No. 5:22-cv-07557-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant Meta asks the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion to seal parts of the opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Meta applies for leave of this Court pursuant to Local Civil Rules 7-11 and 79-5 to seal parts of Meta's Opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and its supporting exhibits. In conclusion, Meta's request is narrowly tailored to seal only the most sensitive, non-public information contained within the Opposition and Exhibits that reveal proprietary details about Meta's proprietary data storage systems, integrity systems, and highly confidential Source Code. Disclosure of this information would place Meta at a competitive disadvantage and is unnecessary to the public's understanding of this case. Meta owns and operates several prominent social media platforms and communication services, including Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Messenger and WhatsApp. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8EqBsn at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Darcy C. Harris, Esq. Lauren R. Goldman, Esq. Elizabeth K. Mccloskey, Esq. Abigail A. Barrera, Esq. Natalie J. Hausknecht, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-0193 Telephone: (212) 351-4000 Facsimile: (212) 351-4035 E-mail: lgoldman@gibsondunn.com dharris@gibsondunn.com emccloskey@gibsondunn.com abarrera@gibsondunn.com nhausknecht@gibsondunn.com MIDLAND NATIONAL: Taylor Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Veronica L. Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Midland National Life Insurance Company, Case No. 5:23-cv-04125-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on March 5, 2026, will move the Court to certify a class. Specifically, the Plaintiff requests the Court certify the "Restitution Class" defined below pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), for her claim under the California Unfair Competition Law: "All public employees of all California local school districts, community college districts, county offices of education, and state employees of a state employer under the uniform state payroll system, excluding the California State University System, eligible to participate in an annuity contract and custodial account as described in Section 403(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 who since June 27, 2019 and continuing through the date the class list is prepared, were invested in an indexed annuity 403(b) product issued by the Defendant and who had deductions from their account related to GLWB riders, ABRs, and/or enhanced participation rates that were not disclosed on 403bcompare.com." In the alternative, the Plaintiff seeks certification of an injunctive relief class ("Injunctive Relief Class") under Rule 23(b)(2), defined as follows: "All public employees of all California local school districts, community college districts, county offices of education, and state employees of a state employer under the uniform state payroll system, excluding the California State University System, eligible to participate in an annuity contract and custodial account as described in Section 403(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 who since June 27, 2019 and continuing through the date the class list is prepared, are invested in an indexed annuity 403(b) product issued by the Defendant with a GLWB rider and who had deductions from their account for the GLWB rider." The Plaintiff requests to be appointed as class representative and her counsel appointed as Class Counsel. Here, the Injunctive Relief Class satisfies Rule 23(b)(2). Defendant has acted in a consistent manner with respect to all class members, imposing rider fees on all of them in the same manner without disclosing them on the Website, and these violations are ongoing. Appropriate injunctive relief would include proper disclosure of the GLWB fees at issue, including putting up pages for discontinued products. Plaintiff is an appropriate representative for such relief because Plaintiff has an in-force annuity with Defendant and continues to be charged undisclosed GLWB fees. Certification of the Injunctive Relief Class under Rule 23(b)(2) is thus appropriate. The Plaintiff's proposed class meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and should be certified. The Plaintiff brings a single claim against Defendant for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Midland offers annuities and life insurance products and services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0H0S3X at no extra charge.[CC] E. Michelle Drake, Esq. John G. Albanese, Esq. Ariana B. Kiener, Esq. Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq. Joshua P. Davis, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 E-mail: emdrake@bergermontague.com jalbanese@bergermontague.com akiener@bergermontague.com jhashmall@bergermontague.com jdavis@bergermontague.com - and - Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. Mark E. Thomson, Esq. Steven J. Eiden, Esq. Jennifer K. Lee, Esq. ENGSTROM LEE LLC 729 N. Washington Ave., Suite 600 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 305-8349 Facsimile: (612) 677-3050 E-mail: cengstrom@engstromlee.com mthomson@engstromlee.com seiden@engstromlee.com jlee@engstromlee.com MIDTOWN HOSPITALITY: Valencia Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUSTIN VALENCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDTOWN HOSPITALITY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09002 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.cravefishbar.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on May 8, 2025, to access Defendant's website for an online restaurant reservation from his home but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online content and services. The website allegedly contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Midtown Hospitality, LLC operates the website that serves as a seafood restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com MM 879: $995K Gross Settlement in Cruz Suit Gets Final OK --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA CRUZ, et al., v. MM 879, INC., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01563-TLN-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Grosjean entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and final approval is granted in part. 2. The following settlement class is certified: "All non-exempt employees of MM 879, Inc., who performed work in California from April 6, 2007, through Jan. 18, 2019." 3. The Court approves Plaintiffs Angela Cruz, Maria Madrigal, Lourdes Baiz, and Christie Goodman as the class representatives. 4. The Court approves S. Brett Sutton and Brady Briggs of Sutton Hague Law Corporation, P.C. as class counsel. 5. The Court approves a $995,000 gross settlement amount. 6. The Court approves an award of $331,666.66 in attorneys' fees. 7. The Court approves an award of $123,856.68 in costs. 8. The Court approves ILYM Group, Inc. as the settlement administrator and permits payment of $7,950 to it as costs. 9. The Court approves a $75,000 PAGA payment, with $56,250 of this amount being paid to the LWDA and the $18,750 remainder going to the aggrieved employees. 10. The Court approves a class representative service payment of $40,000 total, with $10,000 going to each of the four named Plaintiffs—Angela Cruz, Maria Madrigal, Lourdes Baiz, and Christie Goodman. As Plaintiffs requested a $100,000 service payment, the unallocated $60,000 shall be used to fund payments to the class members and shall be allocated using the formula contained in the parties' settlement agreement. The Court concludes that a class action is a superior method of resolving this action. First, it does not appear economical for each class member to bring their claims separately. The class action litigation here allows the class members to pool their individual claims together, which claims may otherwise not be economical to litigate. The Plaintiffs Angela Cruz, Maria Madrigal, Lourdes Baiz, and Christine Goodman generally allege that they have suffered California Labor Code violations in connection with their employment as cleaners. They filed this case in the Fresno County Superior Court on April 6, 2011. MM 879 was a specific, independently owned franchisee of the Merry Maids cleaning service. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7uAdch at no extra charge.[CC] MONSTER BEVERAGE: Class Cert Filing in Hollien Due March 12, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD HOLLIEN, JOSH McCORMICK, CHARLES WHITTELSEY, individually, and as representatives of a Putative Class of Participants and Beneficiaries of and on behalf of the Monster Energy Company 401(k) Plan, v. MONSTER BEVERAGE CORPORATION; ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY 401(k) PLAN; and DOES 1-50 as Board Members of Monster Beverage Corporation and/or as members of the Administrative Committee, Case No. 8:24-cv-01467-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Holcomb entered an order Extending Case Deadlines as follows: 1. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their anticipated class certification motion is extended to Mar. 12, 2026. 2. The deadline for the Defendants to file their opposition to the class certification motion is extended to Apr. 16, 2026. 3. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their reply re the class certification motion is extended to May 14, 2026. 4. The hearing on the class certification motion is extended to June 2, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. Monster is an American beverage company that manufactures energy drinks. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1BFuAI at no extra charge.[CC] MURPHY REHABILITATION: Conditional Cert of Collective Action Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERESA FLEMING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MURPHY REHABILITATION, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00206-MOC-WCM (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective action. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), the Plaintiff files this motion for the Court to authorize issuance of notice to prospective collective action members of the pendency of this lawsuit pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Murphy provides non-acute medical and skilled nursing care services, therapy and social services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O6txET at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Telephone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 E-mail: marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com - and - Jacob J. Modla, Esq. CROMER BABB & PORTER, LLC 1418 Laurel Street, Suite A Post Office Box 11657 Columbia, SC 29211 Telephone: (803) 799-9530 E-mail: jake@cromerbabb.com NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Suit for $303-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Paula Lavigne, writing for ESPN, reports that the NCAA has agreed to pay $303 million to settle a class action antitrust lawsuit representing about 7,700 volunteer college coaches who alleged the organization engaged in illegal wage fixing under a rule that prohibited schools from paying them. On average, a coach from November 10 proposed settlement would receive about $39,200 before expenses and fees, based on the school, sport and years worked, according to the proposed settlement, which is awaiting approval by Judge William B. Shubb in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. From 1992 to July 2023, the NCAA and its schools agreed to cap the number of paid coaches for Division I sports. Certain sports teams were allowed one "volunteer coach" who would not be paid and who was restricted from receiving other benefits. The NCAA punished schools that violated that rule. The lawsuit claimed those actions were examples of wage-fixing and "unlawful agreements in restraint of the trade and commerce," referring to the NCAA in the complaint as a "cartel." "This combination and conspiracy by the NCAA and its members schools (which possess a dominant position in the relevant market) has resulted in, and will until restrained continue to result in, anti-competitive effects," including fixing compensation "at the artificially low level of zero" and eliminating or suppressing competition for skilled labor in the market, the lawsuit states. The proposed settlement agreement noted that "many class members will receive a six-figure amount." The class includes volunteer coaches who, at any point from March 17, 2019, to June 20, 2023, worked for an NCAA Division I athletic program other than baseball. Baseball coaches filed a similar lawsuit in November 2022 and reached a settlement with the NCAA for $49.25 million, with $33 million going specifically to about 1,000 coaches. Judge Shubb, who is also overseeing the current lawsuit, signed off in September. In response to that case, the NCAA dropped the rule limiting the number of paid coaches across all sports in July 2023, and coaches who had previously been designated "volunteer" could now be paid. The second lawsuit, filed in March 2023, initially represented five former volunteer coaches as named plaintiffs, who worked in sports such as swimming, track and field, volleyball, and softball. (Volunteer coaches were not allowed in football or basketball.) One of those was Katherine Sebbane, who coached softball at the University of Pittsburgh from 2019 until 2021. Sebbane was paid about $25,000 to run the university's youth camps, clinics and recruiting events. But she also worked about 40 hours a week as an assistant coach, for which she was not paid. As a volunteer coach, she was also not allowed to receive other benefits, including meals and even medical care from athletic trainers. "There was an instance where the team was catered Chick-fil-A and [a] compliance [official] was down the hall . . . I was verbatim told, 'Hey, don't go out there to grab a sandwich. Compliance is down there.' Like, you're not supposed to be eating with the team," she told ESPN. "And I'm like, I'm the one who can't afford groceries." While Sebbane said she willingly took the job knowing she wouldn't be paid, she said there was an understanding in coaching circles that doing so was almost a requirement to get to the next stage and climb the ladder to a paid position. The lawsuit stated that many other volunteer coaches felt similarly. Sebbane said she finally had to give up the job and left coaching. "There's a lot of people that have suffered financially, and, you know, two years of financial distress, that takes, like, 10 years to catch up. I believe all of us should be compensated for our time that we put in," she said. In July 2023, Judge Shubb denied the NCAA's motion to dismiss, noting that "plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to show a violation" of the Sherman Antitrust Act. He wrote, "it is not implausible that plaintiffs would have been paid a salary above $0 but for the NCAA's adoption of the bylaw." After the settlement agreement, plaintiffs' attorneys Dennis Stewart, Michael Lieberman and Bob Gralewski said in an emailed statement, "We are incredibly proud of this settlement which, if approved, will provide significant and meaningful compensation to thousands of hard-working coaches . . . We look forward to the approval process and are committed to ensuring that these funds are distributed to coaches in a fair and efficient manner." This was the latest in a series of lawsuits alleging antitrust behavior by the NCAA, including the recent $2.8 billion settlement agreement to compensate athletes for lost opportunities to benefit from their name, image and likeness, and to allow schools to share revenue with athletes. NCAA president Charlie Baker addressed the volunteer coaches settlement in a memo sent to members November 10, Monday, noting the dispute with the volunteer coaches "is one of the largest remaining lawsuits we face and resolving it provides certainty and clarity for the association and our members." He noted that the settlement will be funded by the Division I membership and the national office, and payments likely wouldn't start until after next summer. "While this settlement represents a substantial financial commitment, it closes the door on claims related to volunteer coach bylaws, which were effective until June 30, 2023. It also ensures that Division I conferences and member schools are released from any claims for unpaid wages, benefits, or related damages during the Class Period," Baker wrote. [GN] NATURAL DELI: Must Pay $212K in "Mendez" Wage Violation Case ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Angel Mendez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sam Natural Deli Corp. (d/b/a Natural Deli), BK Natural Deli Corp. (d/b/a Natural Deli), and Mathanna Abdo, Defendants, Case No. 25-cv-1692 (BMC), Judge Brian M. Cogan of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the Plaintiff's motion for a default judgment in a wage recovery action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and corresponding provisions of the New York Labor Law. The Defendants were properly served, and the Clerk entered their default under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). The Defendants did not respond to the Plaintiff's motion for default judgment. The complaint and the Plaintiff's affidavit show that he worked in excess of 40 hours per week. For 105 weeks, from October 10, 2021, until October 15, 2023, the Plaintiff worked from approximately 12:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., six days per week, typically 60 hours per week. During that period the Plaintiff was paid in cash at $1,000 per week, regardless of the number of hours he had worked. As of October 16, 2023, his weekly wage was increased to $1,200 per week, where it remained for 28 weeks until his employment ended on approximately April 30, 2024. Using a 40-hour week as the denominator, his regular rate for the First Pay Period was $25 per hour and his overtime rate was $37.50 per hour. For the Second Pay Period, his regular rate was $30 per hour and his overtime rate was $45 per hour. He was shorted during the First Pay Period of $750 per week in overtime, for a sum of $78,750. He was shorted during the Second Pay Period of $900 per week in overtime, for a sum of $25,200. Thus, the Plaintiff's compensatory damages for unpaid overtime are $103,950. The Court determined that the Plaintiff is entitled to receive an equal amount in liquidated damages because the Defendants did not have a good faith defense in failing to pay overtime. It is common knowledge among employers that time-and-a-half must be paid for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Thus, the Plaintiff's liquidated damages are $103,950. The Plaintiff also seeks $4,520 in attorneys' fees and $1,021 in costs. The total of 10.6 hours of time spent is reasonable. The Court found that the $400 per hour for Of Counsel Jesse Barton is reasonable. However, the Court reduced partner Michael Faillace's claimed rate of $450 per hour to $325 per hour because until late 2023, he was suspended from practice in the Southern District of New York. With his reinstatement so relatively recent, a paying client would be extremely hesitant to pay those top rates to an attorney who was found to have effectively stolen settlements from clients. The Court disallowed and dismissed the Plaintiff's claims for lack of the required wage notice statements and wage hiring notice under the NYLL because he lacks Article III standing to maintain those claims. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion for a default judgment was granted. Costs amount to $1,021; attorneys' fees amount to $3,835; the Plaintiff's compensatory damages amount to $103,950; and the Plaintiff's liquidated damages amount to $103,950. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $212,756. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L70kLg from PacerMonitor.com NCAA: Brantmeier Wins Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REESE BRANTMEIER and MAYA JOINT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-00238-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Catherine Eagles entered an order as follows: 1. The plaintiffs shall provide names, email addresses, and postal mail addresses of potential class members, as provided by the NCAA, to the Notice Administrator. 2. The Notice Administrator shall send the email notices as quickly as practicable and, for any undeliverable returned emails, postcard notices no later than Nov. 21, 2025. Opt-out letters must be postmarked no later than Feb. 5, 2026. 3. The Notice Administrator shall maintain a public website where this Order, the Class Certification Order, the approved Notice, and all other substantive orders shall be posted. 4. The Notice Administrator SHALL issue a press release about class certification containing the relevant deadline to opt- out and the class website. 5. The Notice Administrator shall promptly place targeted advertisements on social and digital media about certification and the opt-out deadline, as proposed by the plaintiffs. 6. The Notice Administrator SHALL file a report showing compliance with this order by February 19, 2026. The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and certified one class of persons seeking injunctive relief and another seeking damages. The injunctive class as certified consists of: "All persons who, at any time between March 19, 2020, and the date of judgment in this action, (i) competed in NCAA Division I Tennis, or (ii) were ineligible to compete in NCAA Division I Tennis due to the Prize Money Rules." The damages class consists of: "All persons who, at any time between March 19, 2020, and the date of initial distribution of Class Notice in this matter, have voluntarily forfeited Prize Money earned in a tennis tournament, and (i) have competed in NCAA Division I Tennis, or (ii) have submitted information to the NCAA Eligibility Center." National is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletics. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BYW4I7 at no extra charge.[CC] NORTH AMERICAN CO: Blisten Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barry Blisten, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. North American Company for Life and Health Insurance, Case No. 5:23-cv-04123-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on March 5, 2026, will move the Court to certify a class. Specifically, the Plaintiff requests the Court certify the class defined below pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for his claim under the California Unfair Competition Law: "All public employees of all California local school districts, community college districts, county offices of education, and state employees of a state employer under the uniform state payroll system, excluding the California state university system, eligible to participate in an annuity contract and custodial account as described in Section 403(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 who since June 27, 2019 and continuing through the date the class list is prepared, were invested in an indexed annuity 403(b) product issued by the Defendant and who had deductions from their account related to guaranteed lifetime withdrawal benefits, guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefit, benefits pursuant to an enhanced benefit rider, and enhanced participation rates that were not disclosed on 403bcompare.com." Plaintiff’s proposed class meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and should be certified. The Plaintiff brings a single claim against Defendant for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has violated the "unlawful" and "unfair" prongs of the UCL by charging fees for annuity plans that i did not disclose on 403bCompare.com, in violation of Sections 25101 and 25107 of the Education Code. North is a major provider of insurance products and annuities. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d6L7DX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Michelle Drake, Esq. John G. Albanese, Esq. Ariana B. Kiener, Esq. Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq. Joshua P. Davis, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 E-mail: emdrake@bergermontague.com jalbanese@bergermontague.com akiener@bergermontague.com jhashmall@bergermontague.com jdavis@bergermontague.com - and - Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. Mark E. Thomson, Esq. ENGSTROM LEE LLC 729 N. Washington Ave., Suite 600 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 305-8349 Facsimile: (612) 677-3050 E-mail: cengstrom@engstromlee.com mthomson@engstromlee.com NOVA SCOTIA: $32MM Disabled Class Suit Settlement Gets Court OK --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael MacDonald, writing for CBC News, reports that a judge has approved one of the largest class-action settlements in Nova Scotia's history, saying the agreement could see the province paying $32 million to as many as 2,600 disabled residents. The award is meant to compensate people with mental and physical disabilities who for years were wrongly denied social assistance benefits under the province's disabilities assistance program. Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice Darlene Jamieson said the settlement, which could rise to $34 million, was "fair, reasonable and in the best interests" of those involved. In a statement of claim filed in October 2022, lawyers for 25-year-old plaintiff Isai Estey argued that the disabled man's Charter rights had been violated by the province's "cruel and inhumane" actions. The claim states that since 1998, the province has had a statutory obligation to provide social assistance to residents in need, but that obligation was largely ignored for people with disabilities. Public funds set aside for disability assistance benefits were limited by an arbitrary cap and were treated as discretionary, which resulted in many applicants being placed on wait-lists. Without that financial support, many of these applicants had no choice but to remain in what may have been unsuitable living arrangements with relatives, or in institutional facilities, nursing homes, hospitals or small-options homes far from their families. Some of those forced to live in hospitals and nursing homes did not have any medical conditions and were not elderly. "In many cases, these arrangements continue for years, often decades," the statement of claim says. "Denying people with a mental or physical disability or both the assistance to which they are entitled in this arbitrary way is cruel and inhumane. It is discriminatory. It strips them of their dignity and interferes with their liberty and the security of their person." Anne MacRae, Estey's mother and litigation guardian, submitted an affidavit to the court saying the settlement was in the best interests of all class members. "While there is no amount of money that can fully compensate a person who has been discriminated against on the basis of their disability when it comes to social assistance, I am gratified by this significant achievement," MacRae said. "Isai and I are proud of the role Isai has played in this achievement." In 2021, the Disability Rights Coalition won a Nova Scotia Court of Appeal decision that identified systemic discrimination against people with disabilities seeking housing and supports in the community. That ruling provided compensation to those directly involved in the case, but there was nothing for others affected by the same discrimination. The case, however, prompted a human rights board of inquiry to draft a list of reforms required to address the province's shortcomings. In August of this year, an independent monitor said the province had notable delays in delivering new programs and services, two years into the legally mandated program to move people with disabilities out of institutions and off wait-lists. The Disability Rights Coalition followed up by urging Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston to create a five-year plan to get the job done. In the Charter challenge case, the statement of claim says the province had violated the Charter under sections 7 and 15. Section 7 deals with the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Section 15 guarantees the right to equality before law. The Nova Scotia government agreed to the terms of the class action in August 2025. As of November 7, Friday, almost 500 people had indicated their interest in being part of the class proceeding, court heard. Despite the large sum of money involved, court heard that once administrative costs and legal fees are factored in, the amount left for class members will be about $18 million. Any reward that class members get will not be counted as income, and the claims process for the bulk of the money will likely take about two years to complete. [GN] NUMBER ONE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hernandez Says --------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NUMBER ONE CAVIAR, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06073 (E.D.N.Y., October 30, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website www.numberonecaviar.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on March 31, 2025, to access Defendant's website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's truffle products, particularly the Zigante Collection 3-in-1 "Truffle & Pleasure," but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. NUMBER ONE CAVIAR, LLC operates the website that offers gourmet products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com OLIVIA ENTERPRISES: Alexandria Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERIKA ALEXANDRIA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OLIVIA ENTERPRISES CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09010 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website www.toloachenyc.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most recently on May 16, 2025 to access Defendant's website from her home but encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online content and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to place an order for Mexican food, specifically a quesadilla. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus denied the benefit of reviewing the menu and placing an online order, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Olivia Enterprises Corp. operates the website that offers Mexican cuisine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com PARKER-HANNIFIN CORP: Class Cert Deadlines in Naranjo Vacated ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS A. NARANJO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION et. al., and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 8:25-cv-00405-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Holcomb entered an order as follows: 1. This matter is stayed pending the completion of mediation on April 9, 2026. Any party may move at any time to modify or vacate the stay, for good cause shown. 2. All future dates, including the Oct. 31, 2025, hearing on the Court's Order to Show Cause regarding Consolidation of the Plaintiff's related cases and all motion for class certification related deadlines, are vacated. 3. The parties are directed to file no later than April 24, 2026, a joint status report that advises the Court regarding the posture of the case. 4. A Status Conference is set in Courtroom 9D for May 8, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. Counsel for the parties are directed to appear in person at that date and time. Parker-Hannifin is an American corporation specializing in motion and control technologies. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ziL4rR at no extra charge.[CC] PATSY'S ITALIAN: Hoti Conditional Cert Bid Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRESHNIK HOTI, et al., v. PATSY'S ITALIAN RESTAURANT, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-06991-JGLC-HJR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Henry Ricardo entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification. 1. The Defendants shall produce a spreadsheet, in Excel format if possible, containing the names, last known addresses, last known phone numbers, last known e-mail addresses, dates of employment, and position(s) held for potential opt-in plaintiffs; and 2. The parties shall, after meeting and conferring, prepare and submit to the court for its approval a revised notice, revised text message notice, and proposed distribution order, incorporating the court's rulings. The Plaintiffs have satisfied their minimal burden of demonstrating that they and potential collective members were subjected to a common policy of not properly compensating servers for overtime work. Therefore, the Defendants' arguments are unavailing at this stage, and the Plaintiffs have met their burden for conditional certification of a collective regarding their overtime payment claim. The Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of a collective of servers employed at Patsy's on or after Sept. 17, 2021. The Plaintiffs, former servers at Patsy's Italian Restaurant, brought this action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and their implementing regulations. The Plaintiff Hoti worked as a server at Patsy's from 2017 through September 2024. Patsy's is a traditional, family-owned and operated Italian restaurant. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Oct. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9qKRF5 at no extra charge.[CC] PF CALI PAYROLL: Bid to Continue Class Briefing Tossed as Moot -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOEL STRANDHOLT and FRANK LAWSON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. PF CALI PAYROLL, LLC; PF SUPREME, LLC d.b.a. PLANET FITNESS; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 8:24-cv-01256-CV-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Valenzuela entered an order denying as moot the Plaintiffs' ex parte application to continue briefing related deadlines and hearing date re: motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court strikes the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and the Plaintiffs' opposition. The Court further denies the Application as moot. The Defendants may refile a motion for judgment on the pleadings or a motion for summary judgment after briefing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is concluded. All potentially dispositive motions shall comply with the requirements set forth in the Court's Order re: Summary Judgment Motions. A motion filed pursuant to Rule 12(c) more than 21 days after the pleadings are closed will be deemed as a dispositive motion. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nRfbgQ at no extra charge.[CC] PHE INC: Faces T.D. Suit Over Illegal Private Info Collection ------------------------------------------------------------- T.D., individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-09349 (N.D. Cal., October 30, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all California residents who have accessed and used Defendant's website www.adameve.com pursuant to the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the California's Constitution. According to the complaint, through its website, the Defendant markets and sells sex toys, lingerie, bondage equipment, lubricants, and more. Few things are more private than information related to an individual's sexual preferences, as they can often reveal inherently sensitive details about their sexual orientation as well as conditions related to their sexual health. Unbeknownst to consumers, however, the Defendant collects such information when they visit its website, including personally identifiable information and information related to visitors' sexual life, sexual preferences, and/or sexual orientation. Despite such legal protections, and consumers' expectations of privacy, the Defendant aids, employs, agrees, and conspires with various third parties to intercept such sensitive and confidential communications sent and received by Plaintiff and Class Members, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff brings this action for legal and equitable remedies resulting from these illegal actions. PHE, Inc. manufactures adult products. The Company provides a diverse range of sexual wellnes products and sex toys in stores and online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main St., Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 874-0708 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com mgirardi@bursor.com PLAYTIKA LTD: Barbarino Sues Over Illegal Online Gambling Games --------------------------------------------------------------- William Barbarino, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PLAYTIKA LTD., and PLAYTIKA HOLDING CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-17013 (D.N.J., Oct. 29, 2025), is brought seeking recovery of illegal gambling losses by New Jersey residents who played Playtika's illegal online gambling games. The Plaintiff seeks, on her own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated New Jersey residents: a ruling that Playtika's games violate federal law, and that Playtika's online terms of service set out the terms and conditions under which the illegal gambling is conducted and are therefore unenforceable in a federal court; a ruling that the online terms of service promulgated by Playtika, as well as the arbitration and delegation provisions contained in the terms of service are each void as violative of New Jersey law; a determination that provisions in the Playtika Terms of Service that prevent customers from effectively vindicating statutory rights are void and unenforceable. recovery under the New Jersey gambling loss recovery act; and recovery under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiff played the illegal gambling games. Playtika is a game developer that has created games that simulate slot machines and other gambling games.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Pl. #400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Phone: 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 Phone: 205.930.9900 Facsimile: 205.930.9989 Email: dware@davisnorris.com jnorris@davisnorris.com PLUTO ACQUISITION: Class Settlement in McDowell Gets Final Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VIDAL MCDOWELL, v. PLUTO ACQUISITION OPCO, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-12827-RJW-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge White entered an order granting joint motion for final approval of class action settlement. (1) The joint motion for final approval of class action settlement is granted, and the Parties are directed to perform their duties under the joint stipulation of class settlement, and the Clerk is instructed to enter the consent order. (2) The terms of the joint stipulation of class settlement are given full force and effect. (3) The Plaintiff and the Settlement Classes release all of the "Released Claims as defined by joint stipulation of class settlement with prejudice and are barred and enjoined from pursuing any of the Released Claims in any forum or venue. Pluto is a provider of comprehensive background screening services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2dEOep at no extra charge.[CC] POWER SOLUTIONS: Awaits Final Court OK of "Treadwell" Deal ---------------------------------------------------------- Power Solutions International, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is awaiting final court approval of the settlement in the putative class suit filed by Jerome Treadwell. In October 2018, a putative class-action complaint was filed against the Company and NOVAtime Technology, Inc. ("NOVAtime" or "Plaintiff") in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. In December 2018, NOVAtime removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (the "Court") under the Class Action Fairness Act. Plaintiff has since voluntarily dismissed NOVAtime from the lawsuit without prejudice and filed an amended complaint in April 2019. The operative, amended complaint asserts violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") in connection with employees' use of the time clock to clock in and clock out using a finger scan and seeks statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive and equitable relief. An aggrieved party under BIPA may recover (i) $1,000 per violation if the Company is found to have negligently violated BIPA or (ii) $5,000 per violation if the Company is found to have intentionally or recklessly violated BIPA plus reasonable attorneys' fees. In May 2019, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint. In December 2019, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss. In January 2020, the Company moved for reconsideration of the Court's order denying the motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to stay the case pending the Illinois Appellate Court's ruling in McDonald v. Symphony Healthcare on a legal question that would be potentially dispositive in this matter. In February 2020, the Court denied the Company's motion for reconsideration, but required the parties to submit additional briefing on the Company's motion to stay. In April 2020, the Court granted the Company's motion to stay and stayed the case pending the Illinois Appellate Court's ruling in McDonald v. Symphony Healthcare. In October 2020, after the McDonald ruling, the Court granted the parties' joint request to continue the stay of the case for 60 days. The Court also ordered the parties to schedule a settlement conference with the Magistrate Judge in May 2021 which went forward without a settlement being reached. On May 22, 2023, the Company filed the answer to the amended complaint. Plaintiff and PSI have since reached a preliminary settlement of the case, and Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement on February 23, 2024. On February 5, 2025 Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of the Class Settlement, which the Court granted on February 7, 2025. As of December 31, 2024, the Company had recorded an estimated liability of $2.4 million, recorded within Other accrued liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets related to the potential settlement of this matter. During the first quarter of 2025, the final settlement amount of $2.4 million was paid to the Plaintiff, of which $0.7 million was paid by the Company and $1.7 million was paid by the Company's insurance carrier. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Chelsea School Dist. Joins Data Breach Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Crystal Hayduk, writing for Chelsea Update, reports that The Chelsea School District (CSD) Board of Education voted at its meeting on Nov. 3 to enter the class-action lawsuit against PowerSchool for the Dec. 2024 data breach. In discussion with the board at its meetings on Oct. 20 and Nov. 3, Superintendent Mike Kapolka said the district's legal counsel, Thrun Law Firm, referred CSD to Frantz Law Group, legal representation for schools in the lawsuit. PowerSchool (PS) is a cloud-based software student information system, used by teachers, students, and parents or guardians. CSD has used PS since 2008. It is used in districts throughout Washtenaw County as part of a consortium agreement with the intermediate school district, under contract set to expire in five years. (A new contract had been signed just prior to the data breach.) From PowerSchool.com: "On Dec. 28, 2024, PowerSchool became aware of a cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized exfiltration of certain personal information from PowerSchool Student Information System (SIS) environments through one of our community-focused customer support portals, PowerSource." Kapolka said it is currently unknown whether any data of CSD staff or students was compromised. He said the primary purpose in joining the lawsuit is to recover costs to the district should any arise. There is no cost to the district to join the lawsuit unless a settlement with recovery is reached. The legal teams would receive a percentage of the recovery, with districts receiving a dollar amount based on the number of students in the district. Kapolka said if the district does not opt in to the lawsuit, doing nothing means the district will automatically be included in the lawsuit. The deadline to join is Dec. 31, 2025. After further discussion and questions from school board members, the action item was brought to a vote. With trustee Nicolia Heineman absent, the item passed five to one, with trustee Eric Wilkinson supplying the no vote. During information and discussion, Kapolka presented updated rules for accepting 31aa funding. Kapolka said this state fund was created in 2022 to support student mental health and safety. The new rules include waiving privilege that would protect information from disclosure in the event of a "mass casualty event," and complying with a comprehensive investigation. A mass casualty event could occur either on school property or at an event sponsored by the school district. It includes, but is not limited to an incident that results in significant injury to three or more people, involves a fatality, or that requires more emergency response than is available in the area where the incident occurs. Board members discussed pros and cons of accepting the funds. The board is expected to vote on a decision at their next meeting. To hear their full conversation, refer to the videorecording of the school board meeting here -- from timestamp 39:40-1:07:45. It will be available for viewing through Jan. 12. In other board news: Kapolka expressed the district's condolences to the family of Bob Benedict, Jr., who died on Oct. 27. Benedict was the principal of North Creek Elementary School for 17 years, and principal of South Meadows Elementary School for seven years. Beach Middle School Principal Adam Schilt and his assistant principal, Kaitlyn Gasparovich, introduced seventh grader Greyson Diesing, November's Student of the Month. Chelsea High School Principal Amanda Clor and Sam McKee, assistant principal, introduced senior Cailyn Jbara, the high school's November Student of the Month. The school board voted to accept the final 2024-25 financial audit as presented. The department of human resources is expected to post an opening for director of safety and security by week's end. Doug Whitsel, who entered the position in summer 2024 when it was newly created, quickly became a valued member of the CSD team. However, he submitted his resignation effective Oct. 17 due to the need to assist his extended family in another part of the state. Upcoming dates: The board meeting will be at 6:30 p.m. on Nov. 17 at the Washington Street Education Center. There will be no school for students Nov. 26-28 for the Thanksgiving holiday. Teachers report for a half day on Nov. 26. [GN] PRIMMER PIPER: Class Cert Filing in Gaboriault Due July 31, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWNA GABORIAULT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. PRIMMER, PIPER, EGGLESTON, & CRAMER, P.C., AND JOHN DOES 1 TO 10, Case No. 2:24-cv-00113-wks (D. Vt.), the Hon. Judge William K. Sessions III entered a stipulated amended discovery schedule order as follows: Event Proposed Deadline Deadline to amend pleadings and add Parties: Jan. 9, 2026 Deadline for completion of class discovery: June 30, 2026 The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification July 31, 2026 and class certification expert reports: The Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiffs' Sept 18, 2026 motion for class certification and the Defendants' class certification expert reports: The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for Oct. 9, 2026 class certification and rebuttal class certification expert reports: Class certification expert discovery complete: June 30, 2026 Primmer is a full-Service law firm offering deep legal expertise to individuals, businesses, and organizations. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5Mws9N at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 Facsimile: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com - and - Andrew B. Delaney, Esq. MARTIN DELANEY &RICCI LAW GROUP 100 North Main Street Barre, VT 05641 Telephone: (802) 479-0568 E-mail: andrew@mdrvt.com The Defendants are represented by: Matthew S. Borick, Esq. DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN PLLC 199 Main Street Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (802)-863-2375 E-mail: mborick@drm.com - and - Christopher J. Seusing, Esq. WOOD SMITH HENNING & BERMAN, LLP 33 Riverside Avenue, Suite 502 Westport, CT 06880 Telephone: (475)-755-7040 E-mail: cseusing@wshblaw.com PROSPER FUNDING: Childress Sues Over Negligent Cybersecurity ------------------------------------------------------------ Joby Childress, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. PROSPER FUNDING, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-09286 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2025), is brought to hold Defendant responsible for its negligent and reckless failure to use reasonable, current cybersecurity measures to protect class members' Personal Information. In September 2025, hackers infiltrated and accessed the inadequately protected computer systems of Defendant and stole the sensitive personal information ("Personal Information" or "PII") of over 17.6 million individuals. Following an investigation, Defendant determined that cybercriminals gained unauthorized access to its systems on (the "Data Breach" or "Breach"). The Defendant failed to implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure their computer systems were protected, failing to take adequate steps to prevent and stop the breach, failing to timely detect the breach, failing to disclose the material facts that they did not have adequate computer systems and security practices to safeguard the Personal Information, failing to honor their repeated promises and representations to protect the Breach Victims' Personal Information, and failing to provide timely and adequate notice of the Data Breach. The Defendant's conduct caused substantial harm and injuries to Plaintiff and the Class, says the complaint. The Plaintiff entrusted his Personal Information to Defendant for the purposes of lending. The Defendant is a peer-to-peer lending platform that allows borrowers to access personal loans ranging from $2,000 to $50,000.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine Ybarra, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Neil Williams, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S Flower St, Ste 1000, Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 297-3807 Email: cybarra@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com nwilliams@sirillp.com - and - Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Email: jaw@federmanlaw.com PROSPER FUNDING: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Thompson Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- GERALD THOMPSON, ANGELA TAYLOR, MARITIA GRIFFITH, and JULIE TUIFEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROSPER FUNDING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-09347 (N.D. Cal., October 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiffs' and similarly situated Class Members' sensitive personally identifying information, which, as a result, is now in criminal cyberthieves' possession. Due to the Defendant's failure to implement reasonable or adequate data security measures, hackers targeted and accessed Defendant's network systems and stole Plaintiffs' and Class Members' sensitive, confidential PII stored therein, including their full names in combination with their Social Security numbers, and other sensitive data, causing widespread injuries to Plaintiffs and Class Members, relates the complaint. The Defendant breached their duties owed to Plaintiffs and Class Members by failing to safeguard their PII, which it collected and maintained, including by failing to implement industry standards for data security to protect against, detect, and stop cyberattacks, which allowed criminal hackers to access and steal millions of consumers' PII, says the suit. To remedy Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class bring claims for negligence/negligence per se, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. In addition, Plaintiff Thompson brings a claim on behalf of himself and the California Subclass for violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act. The Plaintiffs and Class Members are current and former customers of Defendant who, in order to obtain financial services from Defendant, were and are required to entrust Defendant with their sensitive, non-public PII. Prosper Funding, LLC is a financial services company offering a variety of lending products to consumers and businesses.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David M. Berger, Esq. GIBBS MURA LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: dmb@classlawgroup.com - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street Fourteenth Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Facsimile: (212) 202-4322 E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1200 17th Street, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: Jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com PROVIEW AUTO GLASS: Charland Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ProView Auto Glass Company LLC. The case is styled as Robert Charland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ProView Auto Glass Company LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-04058-KML (D. Ariz., Oct. 29, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. ProView Auto Glass & Tint -- https://www.proviewautoglass.com/ -- provides mobile windshield replacement, sensor recalibration, chip repair, and tint in the greater Phoenix metro area of Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David James McGlothlin, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 301 East Bethany Home Road, Suite C-195 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: david@kazlg.com - and - Ryan Lee McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Email: ryan@kazlg.com PRUSSIAN INC: Court Enters Default Judgment in "Wang" ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Zhiheng Wang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Prussian, Inc., and Mike Yin Liang, Defendants, Civil Action No. 22-CV-4576 (OEM)(RML) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Orelia E. Merchant of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York overruled Defendant Liang's objections and adopted a Report and Recommendation in its entirety, resulting in default judgment entered against Defendant Prussian, Inc. Plaintiff Zhiheng Wang filed this putative class action on August 3, 2022, asserting employment discrimination claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Plaintiff also asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and New York Labor Law Section 190 et seq. Defendant Prussian, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides active hedging, monetization and intelligence services to corporations and investment firms, and Defendant Mike Yin Liang is a California resident and Prussian's President and Chief Executive Officer. On December 14, 2022, Defendants answered the complaint. On November 28, 2023, Defendants' counsel moved to withdraw, which the Court granted on January 19, 2024. In granting the motion to withdraw, Magistrate Judge Levy warned that Prussian must retain counsel or be found in default. On March 12, 2024, Liang informed the Court by fax that Prussian had filed for bankruptcy protection. The bankruptcy case was closed by court order on April 12, 2024, and the bankruptcy stay was lifted with respect to Prussian. On January 17, 2025, Magistrate Judge Levy directed Prussian to retain counsel within thirty days or show good cause for an extension of time to do so. Magistrate Judge Levy warned Prussian that failure to obtain counsel will result in a recommendation that a default judgment be entered against it. On May 5, 2025, noting that well over thirty days passed and no attorney had entered an appearance on behalf of Prussian, Magistrate Judge Levy issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Prussian's answer be stricken and that a default judgment be entered against it. On May 19, 2025, Liang emailed and called the Court, seeking an extension of time to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Court granted Liang's request and instructed him to file any objections no later than June 5, 2025. Liang filed objections with supporting exhibits on June 5, 2025. The Report and Recommendation recommended that Prussian's answer be stricken and that a default judgment be entered against it on the grounds that Prussian has failed to obtain counsel. Liang raised several objections to the Report and Recommendation, asserting that: (1) personal and medical issues have prevented him from acquiring an attorney, (2) personal absence from the United States and lack of internet access in China have created difficulties communicating with the Court, (3) financial hardship renders him unable to afford an attorney, and (4) Plaintiff's claims are dishonest or at least false. The Court noted that it is well established that a corporation, which is an artificial entity that can only act through agents, cannot proceed pro se. This principle has been reaffirmed repeatedly by the Second Circuit and the district courts within it. The Court in Grace v. Bank Leumi Trust Co. of NY stated that courts long have required corporations to appear through a special agent, the licensed attorney. Although the Court acknowledged Liang's personal challenges and communication difficulties while in China, the Court noted that Liang cited no legal authority for why an exception to this principle should be applied in this case. Additionally, these justifications for the failure to obtain counsel present no realistic or timely solution to Prussian's lack of representation. Indeed, to date, Prussian has failed to secure counsel. Liang was first warned of the requirement in January 2024, nearly two years ago. The Court also acknowledged Liang's claims of financial hardship. However, inability to afford an attorney does not protect Prussian from default, and it is well-settled that, except when faced with the prospect of imprisonment, a litigant has no legal right to counsel in civil cases. Finally, Liang's views on the merits of Plaintiff's claims have no bearing on the requirement that a corporation must appear through counsel. For these reasons, the Court overruled Liang's objections and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Th1HYK from PacerMonitor.com PT OPCO: Valencia Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------ JUSTIN VALENCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PT OPCO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08999 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website www.pinktaco.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on May 26, 2025, to access Defendant's website to make an online restaurant reservation from his home but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's content and services. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of reviewing the menu and making a reservation at the restaurant, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. PT OPCP, LLC operates the website operates the website that offers Mexican-inspired cuisine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com PURE STORAGE: Sued Over Unlawful Data Broker Software Installation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dana Hughes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PURE STORAGE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-10462 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 30, 2025), is brought against the Defendant's installation and use of data broker software without obtaining consent is a violation of the California Trap and Trace Law. The Defendant uses data broker software on its website--https://www.purestorage.com/ (the "Website")--to secretly collect data about a Website visitor's computer, location, and browsing habits. The data broker software then compiles this data and correlates that data with extensive external records it already has about most Californians in order to learn the identity of the Website user. The Defendant has partnered with registered California Data Brokers in order to deanonymize and develop clandestine user profiles on otherwise anonymous website visitors (the "Data Brokers," and each a "Data Broker"). The Defendant has done this by installing at least one Data Broker Software Development Kit ("DBSDK") on the Website. The Defendant's installation and use of DBSDKs violates the California Trap and Trace law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff visited the Website on February 11, 2025. The Defendant sells products and services related to data storage.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. J. Evan Shapiro, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 927-9270 Email: rtauler@taulersmith.com eshapiro@taulersmith.com QUINSTREET PL: Minor Suit Balks at Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ HEATHER LEE MINOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUINSTREET PL, INC., a California corporation d/b/a AmOne, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-09348-KAW (N.D. Cal., October 30, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text messages to phone numbers that are registered on the National Do Not Call registry. According to the complaint, the Defendant places calls and sends text messages to consumers to generate business. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by Defendant's alleged conduct. Plaintiff Minor is the sole owner and user of her cell phone number ending in 0419. She registered her cell phone number on the DNC on March 4, 2022. Quinstreet PL, Inc. operates under the brand name AmOne. AmOne is not a separate corporate entity, but a consumer-facing trade name owned and used by Quinstreet PL, Inc. in connect with its lead generation and loan-matching services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, Floor 4 Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com REDHAWK LENDING II: Carrillo Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Redhawk Lending II, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Diana Carrillo, individually, and behalf of all others similarly situated v. Redhawk Lending II, LLC doing business as: Strideloans.com, John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:25-cv-10395 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Redhawk Lending II, LLC doing business as StrideLoans -- https://strideloans.com/ -- supplies short-term online loans to consumers who are in need of funds to cover unexpected expenses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander James Adducci Taylor, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD - LOMBARD IL 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com ROYAL FURNITURE: Hernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROYAL FURNITURE NY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06074 (E.D.N.Y., October 30, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website www.royalfurnitureny.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on February 4, 2025, to access Defendant's website from his home in an effort to shop for Defendant's bedroom set, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant’s online goods, content, and services. The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Royal Furniture NY, Inc. operates the website that offers bedroom furniture options.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com SA POWER: Cudlee Creek Bushfire Class Action Suit Trial Begins -------------------------------------------------------------- Kathryn Bermingham of ABC News reports that a landmark class action trial seeking compensation for the victims of the 2019 Cudlee Creek bushfire has started in South Australia's Supreme Court, with lawyers for the victims alleging SA Power Networks (SAPN) was negligent in the lead-up to the devastating blaze. Maddens Lawyers, representing the victims, said the case was one of the largest of its kind -- involving an estimated 2,000 affected properties, and more than 3,000 individuals. Some of those affected attended court on November 10, Monday for the beginning of the trial, which is expected to last five weeks. Special Counsel Brendan Pendergast said it was likely that the fire caused more than $200 million in damage, with victims now seeking compensation. He said it was agreed by both parties that the fire, which broke out in "catastrophic" conditions in the Adelaide Hills on December 20, 2019, was started after a powerline was dislodged by a falling tree. "That's not in contention," he told reporters outside court. "What is in contention is the power distribution company, SAPN, say that they were not negligent." Mr Pendergast said a plantation set alight by the downed powerline would also form part of the case. "If you go out and have a look at the scene, there are compromised and fallen trees everywhere," he said. "There's no expertise . . . required to determine that that was a very precarious plantation in a very precipitous location, immediately adjacent to powerlines. We say that all speaks for itself." Woodside property owner Kris Thrower, the representative plaintiff in the case, lost his home and belongings in the fire. "It changes your entire world," he said. He said his family moved house six times in 12 months in the aftermath, and it had been difficult to accept what had happened. "If it was an act of God, you can't change Mother Nature. That's just how it is," he said. "But when it's man-made, man-induced, you must think there's a means to stop it from happening right from the start, before it even occurs." In a statement, SA Power Networks said: "We understand the devastating impact bushfires can have on individuals, families and communities." "The safety of our community and the reliability of South Australia's electricity network remain our highest priorities. We continue to work closely with emergency services and other stakeholders to minimise bushfire risks across South Australia," the statement said. "SA Power Networks is committed to ongoing investment in bushfire mitigation strategies, including vegetation management, network upgrades, and the use of advanced technologies to reduce bushfire risks. "As this matter is presently the subject of legal proceedings, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further at this time." [GN] SACRAMENTO APARTMENTS: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sacramento Apartments LLC, et al. The case is styled as Benjamin Lopez, all others similarly situated v. Sacramento Apartments LLC, Does 1 to 50, Case No. 25CV025407 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Sacramento Apts LLC -- https://www.sacapts.com/ -- offer 10 properties are perfectly situated in the communities of Carmichael, Sacramento, and Citrus Heights.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fawn F. Bekam, Esq. ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP 1700 W Burbank Blvd. Burbank, CA 91506-1313 Phone: 213-493-6300 Fax: 213-336-3704 Email: fawn@abramsonlabor.com SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Hickman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Safelite Fulfillment, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Johnny Hickman, Jr., on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Safelite Fulfillment, LLC, Safelite Fulfillment, Inc., Does 1 to 100, Case No. 25CV026020 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 30, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Safelite -- https://www.safelite.com/ -- is composed of multiple business operations, making them a multifaceted auto glass and claims management organization.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arby Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 Arden Ave., Ste. 203 Glendale, CA 91203-4007 Phone: 818-265-1020 Fax: 818-265-1021 Email: arby@calljustice.com SAMFIN RESOURCES: Farrell Seeks Leave to Conduct Class Cert ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUYEN FARRELL, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. SAMFIN RESOURCES, LLC, and NORMAN J. VELEZ, Jr., Case No. 3:25-cv-00399-MOC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her leave to conduct class certification and damages related discovery against the Defendants for their violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UCHc3G at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rashad Blossom, Esq. BLOSSOM LAW PLLC 126 N. McDowell St., 2nd Floor Charlotte, NC 28204 Telephone: (704) 256-7766 Facsimile: (704) 486-5952 E-mail: rblossom@blossomlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: David Peltan, Esq. PELTAN LAW, PLLC 128 Church Street East Aurora, NY 14052 E-mail: davidpeltan@peltanlaw.com SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Court Stays Briefing on Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM C. FARNEY, v. SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, & JPAY, INC, Case No. 3:25-cv-01354-MW-ZCB (N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Zachary C. Bolitho entered an order that: 1. The Defendant's "Motion to Stay Consideration and Briefing of the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Counsel Pending Resolution of the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration," is granted. 2. Briefing and consideration of the Plaintiff's pending motions are stayed pending resolution of the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. Here, a stay of consideration and briefing of the Plaintiff's pending motions is warranted because it promotes judicial economy and conserves party resources. If the Court grants the Defendants' pending motion to compel arbitration, litigation in this case will be stayed and the matter referred to arbitration in its entirety. Both judicial and party resources would be wasted if the Court were to proceed with the Plaintiff's pending motions and the Defendants' motion to compel was later granted. If the Court denies the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration, the Court can easily lift the stay, order the Defendants to respond to the Plaintiff's motions and rule on the motions at a later time. Securus is a technology communications firm serving prisons across the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=37wedT at no extra charge.[CC] SEER INC: Faces Taylor Suit Alleging Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------------- BRUCE TAYLOR, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of Seer Inc., Plaintiff v. OMID FAROKHZAD, ROBERT LANGER, TERRANCE MCGUIRE, DIPCHAND NISHAR, ISAAC RO, NICOLAS ROELOFS, and MEETA GULYANI, Defendants, -and- SEER, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2025-1232 (Del. Ch., October 27, 2025) is a verified class action complaint against the Defendants for breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with an amendment to the Company's certificate of incorporation (the "Charter Amendment"). Seer Inc. is a life sciences company that develops products for large-scale analysis of proteins in organisms. Defendant Farokhzad -- with Philip Ma and Defendant Langer -- co-founded Seer in 2017. Defendants McGuire, Nishar, Ro, Roelofs and Gulyani served as a Seer Board members. This action challenges self-interested conduct by a controller and an entrenched board, asserts the complaint. The controller, Omid Farokhzad, has presided over a 96% decline in the Company's share price in recent years. Under the Company's current Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation (the "Charter"), his control over the company will expire in December when his supervoting Class B shares are automatically converted to single-vote Class A shares (the "Current Sunset"). If Farokhzad's shares convert to Class A shares on schedule, his voting power would decline from 39.7% to approximately 8%. Farokhzad and the other directors would be vulnerable to an activist campaign. So, rather than let Farokhzad's shares convert, the Director Defendants decided to approve an amendment to the Charter that would extend the sunset date for automatic conversion of the Class B shares by five years (the "Extension"). This will delay control passing from Farokhzad to public investors by five years and entrench the current Board against an activist threat. The proposed extension provides Farokhzad with unfair non-ratable benefits and unreasonably interferes with the stockholder franchise, says the complaint. "The Charter Amendment perpetuates Farokhzad's control over Seer for an additional five years without requiring him to provide any compensation to the Class," alleges the complaint. "As such, the Charter Amendment is unfair and the product of breaches of fiduciary duty." The Plaintiff brings this action seeking a mandatory injunction to force conversion of the Class B shares. Plaintiff Taylor holds Class A shares of Seer and has held those shares continuously since before the proposed Charter Amendment was announced. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ned Weinberger, Esq. Mark D. Richardson, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 573-2540 E-mail: nweinberger@labaton.com mrichardson@labaton.com - and - John Vielandi LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 - and - Joel Fleming Lauren Godles Milgroom EQUITY LITIGATION GROUP LLP 1 Washington Mall #1307 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 468-8602 - and - Jeremy Friedman David Tejtel FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC 493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D Bedford Hills, NY 10507 Telephone: (888) 529-1108 - and - Richard A. Maniskas RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 204-5830 SELECTQUOTE INC: Glancy Prongay Named Lead Counsel in "Pahlkotter" ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Robert Pahlkotter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SelectQuote, Inc., Tim Danker, Ryan Clement, and Raffaele Sadun, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06620 (JLR) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the unopposed motion for appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel. The Plaintiff initiated a putative class action on behalf of all investors that purchased SelectQuote, Inc. securities between September 9, 2020 and May 1, 2025. The Complaint, filed on August 11, 2025, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Robert Pahlkotter moved for his appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead counsel pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The Plaintiff published a notice of the lawsuit, in accordance with the PSLRA, on August 12, 2025. The Movant timely filed the motion on October 10, 2025. The deadline to oppose the motion was October 25, 2025. No opposition has been filed, and no competing plaintiff or counsel has contacted the Court or filed any motion. The Movant believes he has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class. Specifically, the Movant asserts that he suffered financial losses of approximately $37,635. To the best of his knowledge, the Movant is not aware of any other class member that has filed a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff who claims a larger financial interest and is otherwise adequate. Like all members of the purported class, the Movant alleges that the Defendants' material misstatements and omissions concerning SelectQuote's business violated the federal securities laws and the Movant purchased SelectQuote securities in reliance on the Defendants' alleged misstatements and omissions and was damaged thereby. Accordingly, the Movant has made a preliminary showing of typicality. The Movant has retained competent and experienced counsel with the resources and expertise to efficiently prosecute this action. Additionally, the Movant has alleged that his financial losses ensure that he has sufficient incentive to provide vigorous advocacy. There is no indication that there is a conflict, or unique defense, that would make the Movant inadequate to represent the class. Accordingly, the Movant has made a preliminary showing of adequacy. The Court concludes that the Movant is the plaintiff most capable of adequately representing the interests of class members. The Movant has sought the appointment of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead counsel, and this appointment is unopposed. Having reviewed the resume of the firm, the Court finds that it has sufficient experience in complex securities litigation and has been involved in numerous securities fraud class actions. Therefore, the Court approves the Movant's choice of counsel. The Court appoints Robert Pahlkotter as Lead Plaintiff and approves Lead Plaintiff's selection of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Lead Counsel for the class. Accordingly, the Movant's motion is granted. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c5vkMN from PacerMonitor.com SENIOR HEALTHCARE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due August 31, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Griffin v. Senior Healthcare Advisors LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-01220 (D. Or., Filed July 12, 2025), the Hon. Judge Ann L. Aiken entered a scheduling order as follows: Amended Complaint is due Dec. 29, 2025. Exchange of Expert Witness Statements must be completed by May 28, 2026. Rebuttal Expert Disclosures are due by 6/30/2026. Discovery is to be completed by 8/3/2026. Dispositive Motions and Class Certification are due by 8/31/2026. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (FLSA). The Defendant is a non-government, independent health insurance agency.[CC] SERVICENOW INC: $925,000 Settlement in Rubke Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL S. RUBKE, et al., v. SERVICENOW, INC., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01050-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thompson entered an order finding the Amended Settlement Agreement as modified is fair, reasonable, and adequate under 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Event Date Class data to be provided to Nov. 18, 2025 settlement administrator: Motion for final approval to be filed by: Jan. 5, 2026 Class counsel to file their motion for fees Jan. 5, 2026 and costs and Class Representative award: Class members' deadline to submit written Feb. 3, 2026 objection to attorneys' fees, costs, or class representative award: Class Counsel to file reply to Class Member Feb. 9, 2026 written objection to attorneys' fees, costs, or class representative award: Fairness and final approval hearing: Feb. 24, 2026 Under the terms of the Amended Settlement Agreement, ServiceNow will pay $925,000 into a common settlement fund. The Plaintiffs' counsels' attorney's fees are currently estimated to be $160,747.50, and litigation costs $ 118,260.66. The Plaintiffs' counsel agrees to not seek more than $ 231,250.00 in attorneys' fees and not more than $ 120,000.00 in litigation costs. The Plaintiffs Rubke and Du Lac De Fugeres are to receive a contribution award of up to $ 5,000, a total of $ 10,000.00. The SAC proposed a class of: "All participants and beneficiaries of the ServiceNow, Inc. 401(k) Plan who invested in any of the American Century Target Date Funds (excluding the Defendants or any participant/beneficiary who is a fiduciary to the Plan) beginning Feb. 21, 2018, and running through the date of judgment." Unlike the SAC's proposed class, the Settlement Class includes: "All participants of Plan who invested in any of the American Century Target Date Funds during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased Person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period." Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Defendants or any participant or Beneficiary who is a fiduciary to the Plan). ServiceNow is a software company that develops a cloud computing platform to assist companies managing digital workflows for enterprise operations. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i24oP9 at no extra charge.[CC] SOLINA US: Perales Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- OSCAR PERALES, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOLINA US HOLDING, INC., a corporation, and AK EMPLOYER SERVICES, LLC, a limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-02889 (C.D. Cal., October 30, 2025) is a collective and class action brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, arising from Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Defendants classified their hourly employees, including Plaintiff, as non-exempt. They violated the FLSA and Illinois state wage-and-hour laws by systematically miscalculating overtime compensation for hours hourly employees worked in excess of 40 in a given workweek and thereby underpaying them for overtime worked, says the suit. The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Romeoville, Illinois and worked for the Defendants from approximately July 2017 through August 2025. Solina US Holding is in the business of designing tailor-made ingredient solutions for clients in the food industry, foodservice, butchery and nutrition sectors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 1801 Century Park E. #860 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 579-0600 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com STRONACH GROUP: Manipulates Horse Race Betting Pools, Dickey Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN DICKEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE STRONACH GROUP, INC.; STRONACH GROUP SERVICES, LLC; CHURCHILL DOWNS, INC.; THE NEW YORK RACING ASSOCIATION; AMTOTE INTERNATIONAL, INC.; UNITED TOTE COMPANY; RACING AND GAMING SERVICES and ELITE TURF CLUB, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-5962 (E.D.N.Y., October 24, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendants for their scheme to manipulate the betting pools in horse races throughout the United States, in violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and state law. The complaint relates that advances in computer technology and AI (Artificial Intelligence) based algorithms have created the means for a privileged group of insider "bettors" (the "Insider Betting Group") who control vast sums of money, to conspire with various elements of the horse racing industry, identified further herein as the defendants, to rig the United States betting pools in their favor to divert money from the betting pools to the Insider Betting Group to the defendants and away from the nonprivileged or average bettor. As a result of this scheme, the betting pools are not being operated lawfully as pari-mutuel wagering and have become illegal gambling operations. And the "odds" presented to the average bettor at the time a bet is placed are false as a result of the manipulation of the bettors' pool. The Insider Betting Group, employing Computer Assisted Wagering ("CAW") strategies as part of the conspiracy and illegal enterprise (the "Pool Rigging Enterprise") are granted special terms and access to betting pools that the ordinary betting public does not enjoy. Because they bet in much higher volume than a typical player, and thus help enrich the defendants, they are given price advantages, special access to betting pools and informational advantages that are not available to members of the Class. These advantages give an unfair edge to the Insider Betting Group, essentially rigging the betting pools and making it impossible for Class members to bet on a true pari-mutuel basis, or at the odds they believe they are betting on. In many cases, given their preferential advantages, the Insider Betting Group participants enjoy no-risk, no-loss "wagering" opportunities with respect to amounts now approaching nearly $4 billion (US) per year. The identity and make-up of members of the Insider Betting Group is kept secret, and the sources of their funds are not publicly known, but their identity is known to the defendants. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Dickey has extensive history of wagering on thoroughbred racing for at least the past 15-20 years. Up until about 18 months ago, the Plaintiff (who was living in Kentucky at the time) wagered about $100 per weeks on racing, primarily through TwinSpires (the Advance Deposit Wagering business owned by Churchill Downs, Inc.) Plaintiff expected that when he placed bets he was to receive any payout based on the odds one would expect from a betting system free from any agreement or scheme that rigged payouts to favor certain groups, i.e., members of the Insider Betting Group. Plaintiff was injured in his property as he incurred financial losses as a result of the scheme. When he became aware of the problems with the manipulation of the betting pools, he stopped betting on horse racing. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks monetary and equitable relief, including compensatory damages and treble damages as allowed by law; a corrective notice program under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. Plaintiff Ryan Dickey is a resident of the state of Colorado. Stronach Group, Churchill Downs and NYRA own or co-own CAW platforms Elite and Velocity. The Defendants are all members of the Pool Rigging Enterprise, which served the common purpose of allowing the Insider Betting Group members special and preferential access to the betting pools in order to divert money from Class Members to the Insider Betting Group members.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anne F. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 594 Dean Street, Suite 8 Brooklyn, NY 11231 Telephone: (212) 752-5455 Facsimile: (917) 210-3980 E-mail: annej@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Karl P. Barth, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com karlb@hbsslaw.com SUNFLOWER LTD: Operates Illegal Online Gambling Games, King Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHARON KING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNFLOWER, LTD and SUNFLOWER TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-17012 (D.N.J., October 29, 2025) is a class action complaint that seeks recovery of illegal gambling losses by New Jersey residents who played Sunflower's illegal online gambling games. According to the complaint, Sunflower's games operate with two forms of virtual coins. The first are called gold coins. These coins when won cannot be redeemed for real-world currency. However, when users play with gold coins and win more gold coins, the gold coins won can be used to extend their playing time without having to purchase more coins, and thus they obtain more amusement, a valuable consideration under New Jersey gambling law. The other virtual coins used by Sunflower's websites are called Sweeps Coins. Sunflower maintains that Sweeps Coins cannot be purchased. However, when individuals purchase packages of gold coins, they are "given" a set number of Sweeps Coins. Sweeps Coins can be redeemed for real-world currency. Thus, when customers play with them, they are gambling real money, whether Sunflower describes it this way or not. Plaintiff King played the illegal gambling games in the district. Both plaintiff King and the 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, adds the complaint. On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Sharon King seeks for each class member recovery of the amount paid through purchases on Sunflower's websites within the six months preceding the filing of this complaint minus any amounts that player was actually paid back as a result of winnings. Plaintiff Sharon King is a resident citizen of Gloucester County, New Jersey. Defendants Sunflower, Ltd. and Sunflower Technology, Inc. are foreign corporations organized under the laws of Israel doing business through online gambling games in all counties in New Jersey.[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 E-mail: 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 E-mail: dware@davisnorris.com jnorris@davisnorris.com SWEDISH MATCH: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled ZYN Pouches ------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that the makers of ZYN pouches face a proposed class action lawsuit over their youth-focused advertising of the products as "tobacco-free," and label claims concerning how many grams of nicotine are in each pouch. According to the 43-page lawsuit against Swedish Match North America and Philip Morris International, although ZYN products are advertised as tobacco-free, the nicotine in each pouch is, in fact, derived from tobacco, and not made synthetically. Cited in the ZYN class action lawsuit is a study that discovered the presence of formaldehyde, ammonia, nickel and chromium in the thin white pouches, harmful compounds found in tobacco that remain with any nicotine extracted from the leaf. The lawsuit also claims that several studies have detected carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), specifically NNN (N-Nitrosonornicotine) and NNK (4-(Methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone), in ZYN pouches. The filing states that these carcinogenic TSNAs are strongly associated with the formation of tumors in the esophagus, making their supposed presence in ZYN's oral nicotine pouches particularly dangerous. The complaint alleges that the presence of these TSNAs and other tobacco-associated compounds suggests that the nicotine in ZYN pouches is derived from tobacco, making the "tobacco-free" claim patently false. The "tobacco-free" claim is additionally misleading to consumers in that buyers may take the claim to mean that the health risks of tobacco are absent from ZYN products and that the pouches are therefore substantially safer than tobacco-derived items, the lawsuit says. Per the filing, consumers' perception of the apparent healthiness and safety of tobacco-free products is reinforced by the healthy-lifestyle imaging throughout the defendants' ZYN advertising, and serves as a primary factor in purchasing decisions. In a similar vein, the lawsuit contends that the manner in which the nicotine content is disclosed in milligrams on ZYN packages does not help most consumers discern the strength or comparative quantity of the product's nicotine content. The complaint alleges ZYN is aware of this and purposely provides no point of comparison or further disclosure regarding the strength of its products. Per the filing, ZYN products generally are sold at strengths of three or six milligrams of nicotine per pouch, which, on the surface, seems like a small amount in comparison to the eight to 20mg found on average in traditional cigarettes—a perception that ZYN allegedly uses to its marketing advantage. However, the complaint states that the human body only absorbs about 10 percent of the nicotine in traditional cigarettes, or one to two milligrams per cigarette, while ZYN nicotine pouches are chemically designed to have a higher nicotine absorption rate. As such, consumers tend to absorb more nicotine from non-smokable pouches than they do from traditional cigarettes, the lawsuit says. Due to the confusion over dosage strength, which ZYN does nothing to rectify, it is easy for consumers to become dependent on the larger doses of nicotine they receive from ZYNs, the lawsuit argues. The lawsuit cites several social media posts and comments where ZYN users refer to concerningly frequent or heightened dosages. For example, one Instagram user is cited in the filing as saying they take up to four three-milligram ZYN pouches at once, which would provide the same nicotine dosage as smoking eight cigarettes at the same time. Other users are cited in the suit as discussing taking ZYN pouches—again, sometimes more than one at a time—overnight or immediately after waking up. ZYN's legally required disclosure of the addictive nature of nicotine, the filing contends, does not meaningfully aid consumers in understanding the dosage of the pouches or the other health risks associated with nicotine. Finally, the complaint alleges that ZYN's marketing—including the allegedly deceptive tactics surrounding its tobacco -- free claim and nicotine-dosage disclosures -- targets minors and young adults, despite the fact that it is illegal to sell nicotine products to anyone under the age of 21 in the United States. Per the lawsuit, most of the models in ZYN ads are young adults, which research shows appeals greatly to young people and adolescents, regardless of whether the models themselves are of legal age to be using or consuming the advertised product. The suit, citing various studies, states that marketing with models in their twenties is especially appealing in advertising for age-restricted products such as e-cigarettes and other nicotine items. Furthermore, a known, effective tactic in marketing nicotine and tobacco products to young adults and adolescents is adding various flavorings to the items the filing reports. The suit says that ZYN sells its products in 10 flavors for the purpose of "tempt[ing] young buyers." The lawsuit also claims that, in an attempt to market to young consumers, ZYN's ads employ images of appealing food and happy social gatherings or outdoor activities that, along with the language of the ads, imply or outright state that ZYN aids in a sense of social or personal freedom and enjoyment. The filing calls these youth-focused marketing tactics "predatory" and claims that they prey on the fact that people in their teens and early 20s don't yet have fully developed prefrontal cortexes, the part of the brain that manages a person's impulse control, decision-making capabilities and understanding of or consideration for long-term consequences. This has already been found to make people in this age range more vulnerable to substance abuse and electronic cigarette advertising, the case mentions. According to the suit, the FDA issued 119 warning letters and 41 civil money penalty complaints to brick-and-mortar retailers that sold ZYN pouches to consumers under 21 between October 2023 and February 2024. The ZYN class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone who purchased ZYN nicotine pouches in the United States during the applicable statute of limitations period, up until the date of class certification. [GN] SYNOPSYS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Dec. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers and acquirers of Synopsys, Inc. (NASDAQ: SNPS) securities between December 4, 2024 and September 9, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 30, 2025. SO WHAT: If you purchased Synopsys securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Synopsys class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=44981 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 30, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) the extent to which Synopsys' increased focus on artificial intelligence customers, which require additional customization, was deteriorating the economics of its Design IP business; (2) that, as a result, "certain road map and resource decisions" were unlikely to "yield their intended results,"; (3) that the foregoing had a material negative impact on financial results; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Synopsys' business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Synopsys class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=44981 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] TAPESTRY INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Merger Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Tapestry, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission continues to defend itself against the putative securities class actions arising from the proposed merger with Capri Acquisition. Following the previously disclosed termination of the proposed Merger Agreement, dated August 10, 2023, by and among the Company, Merger Sub and Capri, pursuant to which, among other things, Merger Sub would merge with and into Capri (the "Merger") with Capri surviving the Merger and continuing as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company ("the Capri Acquisition") two separate putative securities class actions were filed on December 23, 2024 and January 28, 2025, by plaintiff shareholders in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Capri and certain of its officers and against Tapestry and certain of its officers, alleging that during the respective class periods (between August 10, 2023 and October 24, 2024), Capri and Tapestry misrepresented and failed to disclose adverse facts about Capri's business, operations, market dynamics, and the prospects for approval of the Capri Acquisition, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. The complaints, which each allege violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, seek unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, and equitable relief. On July 14, 2025, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in these matters. TELIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Bids For Lead Plaintiff Naming Due Jan. 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Telix Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (NASDAQ: TLX) between February 21, 2025 and August 28, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Telix investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Telix class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=43778 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Defendants materially overstated the progress Telix had made with regard to prostate cancer therapeutic candidates; (2) Defendants materials overstated the quality of Telix's supply chain and partners; and (3) as a result, defendants statements about Telix's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 9, 2026. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=43778 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved, at that time, the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] TENET HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Systemic Sexual Assault ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sommers Schwartz, P.C., in partnership with Pitt, McGehee, Palmer, Bonanni & Rivers, P.C., has filed a class action lawsuit against Tenet Healthcare, Inc., VHS of Michigan, Inc., VHS Sinai-Grace Hospital, Inc., and former nurse Wilfredo Figueroa-Berrios, according to court documents made public this November. The lawsuit, led by attorneys Lisa M. Esser and Megan Bonanni, alleges that Figueroa-Berrios sexually assaulted vulnerable female patients for years while working as a registered nurse at Detroit's Sinai-Grace Hospital, a facility operated by Tenet Healthcare and its subsidiaries. The complaint seeks class action status on behalf of all Michigan women who were reportedly assaulted or harassed by Figueroa-Berrios while they were patients at the hospital. According to the complaint, the Detroit Police Department identified numerous former female patients who may have experienced sexual assault by Figueroa-Berrios during his employment at the Detroit Medical Center (DMC) Sinai-Grace Hospital. The court filing details multiple incidents, including an August 2025 episode for which Figueroa-Berrios faces criminal charges, as well as other alleged assaults stretching several years back. The case not only targets Figueroa-Berrios as an individual but also the hospital's corporate owners, asserting that Tenet Healthcare, VHS of Michigan, and VHS Sinai-Grace Hospital failed to properly screen, supervise, or remove Figueroa-Berrios despite warning signs and past allegations of misconduct. The complaint alleges that these failures created conditions in which vulnerable patients were exposed to sexual abuse. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1, the named representative for the proposed class, alleges she was sexually assaulted by Figueroa-Berrios during a visit to Sinai-Grace Hospital's emergency department in March 2025. The complaint suggests that the assault occurred under the guise of medical care, violating accepted standards of nursing practice and pointing to broader institutional lapses in supervision and patient safety. In 2024, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services reportedly found Sinai-Grace Hospital out of compliance with patient protection standards, citing deficiencies in abuse reporting, staff training, and oversight. The complaint further references a 2024 state licensure survey that found the hospital failed to conduct fingerprint-based background checks on new hires, including nurses with direct patient contact. The lawsuit asserts claims of negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, premises liability, and violations of Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The complaint seeks damages on behalf of the class for physical and emotional harm and asks the court to certify the class action under Michigan law. Attorneys for the plaintiff argue that the case underscores broader concerns about patient safety and the responsibility of healthcare institutions to protect those in their care, particularly in facilities serving vulnerable populations. As litigation progresses, additional class members may be identified through the discovery process. The filing underscores the legal and regulatory scrutiny now facing Sinai-Grace Hospital and its corporate affiliates in the wake of the allegations. The litigation is ongoing, and the defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in court. CASE INFORMATION Circuit Court for Wayne County, State of Michigan Download Case (PDF): Jane Doe 1 v. Tenet Healthcare, Inc, et al. Case No. 25-017621-CZ ABOUT Sommers Schwartz, P.C. Sommers Schwartz is a powerhouse litigation firm made up of experienced personal injury lawyers, medical malpractice attorneys, commercial and business law attorneys, and employee rights lawyers fighting for unpaid wages and overtime. The law firm serves clients across the country from its offices in Michigan and California. Sommers Schwartz, P.C. 3011 W. Grand Blvd. Suite 460D Detroit, MI 48202 https://www.sommerspc.com/blog/2025/09/nurse-charged-with-sexual-assault-at-sinai-grace-hospital/ MEDIA CONTACT Sommers Schwartz (248) 355-0300 [GN] TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Wins Partial Protecte Order in "Burge" ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as Dena Burge, Leigh Hockett, Jordan Furlan, Cristine Ridey, Patricia Sawczuk, and Anne Arundel County, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., Teva Neuroscience, Inc., Teva Sales & Marketing, Inc., and Cephalon, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-2501-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan.), Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion for Protective Order Related to Plaintiffs' Rule 30(b)(6) Notice to Defendants. The Plaintiffs, representing a proposed class, allege Defendants and their co-conspirators entered an unlawful reverse payment settlement and conspired to safeguard their monopoly on Nuvigil, a wakefulness drug with the generic name armodafinil. Plaintiffs allege Defendants agreed to stay out of the EpiPen market, allowing Mylan and Pfizer to maintain their EpiPen monopoly. In exchange, Plaintiffs contend, Mylan and Pfizer agreed to stay out of the Nuvigil market, allowing Defendants to maintain their Nuvigil monopoly. Plaintiffs refer to this as the trade-for-delay agreement or scheme. Since June 2024, this case has been bifurcated in Phase I to discovery focused on the pivotal issues of the timeliness of Plaintiffs' claims under the applicable statutes of limitations and the related issues of tolling and fraudulent concealment. Plaintiffs served their Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Defendants on June 6, 2025, which set out 28 topics grouped into four categories: (a) The Alleged Trade for Delay Agreement (Topics 1-11); (b) Implementation of the Trade for Delay Scheme (Topics 12-15); (c) Concealment or Non-Disclosure of the Trade for Delay Scheme (Topics 16-19); and (d) Disclosure and Public Awareness of the Alleged Scheme (Topics 20-28). The Defendant timely filed a motion for a protective order forbidding Plaintiffs from inquiring about Topics 1-15. The Defendant asserted good cause exists for a protective order on Topics 1-15 because they are expansive and improper discovery on the merits of Plaintiffs' antitrust claims and therefore outside the scope of Phase I discovery. The Defendant argued the Challenged Topics improperly seek to probe the existence and scope of the alleged trade-for-delay agreement, which is a plain merits issue that is outside of Phase I. Phase I discovery has been specifically limited to: (1) the timeliness of Plaintiffs' claims under the applicable statutes of limitations; (2) any related statute-of-limitations issues, facts, and circumstances, including Defendant's statute of limitations defense or defenses; and (3) the issues of tolling, equitable tolling, and fraudulent concealment. For Plaintiffs to avail themselves of the tolling powers of the doctrine of fraudulent concealment they must show the following elements: (1) the use of fraudulent means by Defendants; (2) successful concealment from Plaintiffs; and (3) that Plaintiffs did not know or by the exercise of due diligence could not have known that they might have had a cause of action. The Court found the following Challenged Topics are proper for Phase I discovery: Topic 1 (Origin of the alleged trade-for-delay agreement); Topics 2, 9 and 11 (Identification of individuals involved in trade-for-delay discussions and decisions and negotiation of patent settlements); and Topics 3, 5, and 6 (Communications and details related to the discussion and coordination of the trade-for-delay agreement). The Court determined that inquiry into these topics may reveal acts of secrecy or concealment involved with the trade-for-delay agreement itself from its inception and may reveal the identities of individuals participating in acts of secrecy or concealment. The Defendant's objections to Topics 1-3, 5-6, 9 and 11 are overruled, and the request for protective order as to them is denied. The Court found the following Challenged Topics relate exclusively to Phase II discovery: Topics 4, 7, 8, and 10 (Economic analyses and modeling); and Topics 12-15 (Implementation of the trade-for-delay agreement). The Court determined that the analyses, projections, and financial information sought by Topics 4, 7, 8 and 10 concern the estimated value of the trade-for-delay agreement and likelihood of success on the underlying patent litigation, which is not facially relevant to any alleged concealment of the trade-for-delay agreement or any other timeliness issue. Topics 12-15 broadly inquire about the implementation of the trade-for-delay agreement without any meaningful limitation tailoring them to discovery of acts of secrecy or concealment. The Defendant's objections to Topics 4, 7, 8, 10, and 12-15 are sustained, and the request for protective order as to them is granted. The Court found the Defendant has not supported the objection that preparing witnesses to testify on Topics 1-3, 5-6, 9, and 11 would be unduly burdensome. The Defendant's unduly burdensome objections are therefore overruled. The Court adopted and will enforce the January 1, 2012 temporal scope limitation on the depositions of Defendant's Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses. The Court found Plaintiffs' requested reservation or exception premature and denied that request. It is therefore ordered that the Defendant's Motion for Protective Order Related to Plaintiffs' Rule 30(b)(6) Notice to Defendants is granted in part and denied in part. The Defendant's motion is granted as to Topics 4, 7, 8, 10, and 12-15. The motion is denied as to Topics 1-3, 5-6, 9, and 11. A copy of the Court's decision dated 31st October 2025 is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9iHZ9l from PacerMonitor.com TEXAS: 5th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Ambriz's Federal Takings Claim ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Rolando Ambriz, Plaintiff—Appellant v. Kelly Hancock, Acting Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, in his official capacity, Defendant—Appellee, Case No. 23-50582 (5th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirms the dismissal of the Plaintiff's federal takings claim. The matter is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, USDC No. 1:22-CV-1067. The Fifth Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Priscilla Richman, Andrew S. Oldham, and Irma Carrillo Ramirez. The purported owner of a presumptively abandoned savings account that was taken into state custody challenges the constitutionality of the state law, which prohibits payment of interest or other compensation to him for the public use of his property. The district court dismissed the federal takings claim for failure to state a claim, and the owner appealed. Concluding that his federal takings claim is barred by sovereign immunity, the Court of Appeals affirms the judgment but remands with instructions to dismiss the claim without prejudice. The Texas Unclaimed Property Act (TUPA) governs, among other things, personal property in Texas that is presumed abandoned. Ronaldo Ambriz contends he is the owner of a presumptively abandoned savings account containing $25 that was taken into custody by the Comptroller and deposited into the State's general revenue fund. He alleges that when he claims his property--which he intends to do as soon as he has obtained a final ruling from this litigation--he will only receive the $25. He will not be compensated for the use of his money to generate revenue for the State. He also alleges that the Comptroller receives more than $100 million in unclaimed property every year and holds over $7 billion. In this class-action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and state law, Ambriz asserts that to the extent TUPA prohibits the Comptroller from paying just compensation for the State's public use of unclaimed property, it violates the Fifth Amendment as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment and Article 1, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution. He seeks a judgment that (1) declares TUPA's prohibition on the payment of just compensation to owners of unclaimed property for its public use unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment, (2) requires the Comptroller to pay owners just compensation for the public use of their property while it was in his custody when they reclaim their property, and (3) sets out the measure of just compensation that the Comptroller must pay to unclaimed property owners. He also seeks an injunction requiring the Comptroller to pay just compensation to him and class members, who reclaim their property in the future, in accordance with the declaratory relief sought pursuant to the declared measure thereof on future claims of Unclaimed Property. The Comptroller moved to dismiss the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, contending that the Eleventh Amendment bars Ambriz's claims and that he lacks standing. He also contends Ambriz has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because there is no "taking" of property presumed abandoned under TUPA. The district court partially granted the motion and dismissed all state law claims and any federal claims seeking retrospective relief or specific damages as barred by sovereign immunity. As for Ambriz's federal claims for prospective declaratory or injunctive relief, it found that sovereign immunity did not bar those claims and that he had standing to assert them, but it dismissed them because the State's retention of any interest on his unclaimed property fails to state a takings clause claim. Mr. Ambriz only appeals the dismissal of his federal claims for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief. The Court of Appeals finds that Ambriz has not sufficiently alleged an ongoing constitutional violation for purposes of the Ex parte Young exception, citing Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 155–56 (1908). An unlawful taking occurs as soon as the government takes property without paying just compensation to its owner. The Panel opines that there is no ongoing violation of federal law to enjoin. Ambriz contends that because the State continues using his property for public benefit, the violation is ongoing. The Panel points out that the residual effects of a prior taking do not constitute an ongoing violation for Ex parte Young purposes. Any alleged ongoing violation arises solely from Ambriz's decision to delay pursuing the return of his property, not from any continuing conduct of the State. The Panel also finds that Ambriz does not meet Ex parte Young's prospective relief requirement. The Panel opines that his request for a declaratory judgment requiring the Comptroller to pay him just compensation for the public use of his property while it was in State custody, is tantamount to an award of damages for a past violation of federal law. According to the Opinion, the Ex parte Young exception does not apply because Ambriz has neither alleged an ongoing violation of federal law, nor requested relief properly characterized as prospective. Because sovereign immunity bars his federal takings claim, there is no federal jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirms the judgment but remands with instructions to dismiss the claims against the Comptroller without prejudice. The Court of Appeals expresses no opinion on what rights and remedies Ambriz has under state law. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ykbjavtz from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. TEXAS: Bid for Leave to File First Amended Complaint Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS and GREG ABBOTT, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, Case No. 3:21-cv-00173-KC (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Kathleen Cardone entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file first amended complaint, the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, and the Defendants' motion to continue response deadline without prejudice to refiling upon resolution of the Defendants' appeal. The Court further entered an order that apart from the preliminary injunction, which remains in effect, the case is stayed pending resolution of the Defendants' appeal. Accordingly, staying the proceedings will serve the interests of judicial economy by preventing the parties from fully briefing and the Court from deciding motions that may be mooted by the Fifth Circuit's resolution of the Defendants' appeal. In addition, because the preliminary injunction remains in effect, Plaintiffs will not be harmed by a stay. Thus, the competing interests weigh towards staying the proceedings. For the same reasons, the Court takes no further action on the scope of the permanent injunction in light of Trump v. Casa until the Fifth Circuit issues a decision on Defendants' appeal. On October 17, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file first amended complaint, and a motion to certify class. On October 27, the Defendants filed a Motion to Continue Response Deadline seeking to abate the deadline to file their response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class until resolution of Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File First Amendment Complaint. Texas is the second largest state in the United States by both land area and population. It is located in the south central region of the country. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UEK60F at no extra charge.[CC] TEXAS: Seeks to Extend Deadline to File Class Cert Response ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS and GREG ABBOTT, in his official capacity as Governor of Texas, Case No. 3:21-cv-00173-KC (W.D. Tex.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the response deadline for Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, until after the Court has ruled on the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file first amended complaint. The resolution of Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave is determinative of whether Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is relevant to further proceedings or is thereby mooted. To prevent the unnecessary expense of the Parties' and the courts' resources on a motion which requires "rigorous analysis that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied," the Defendant moves for a continuance. Texas is the second largest state in the United States by both land area and population. It is located in the south central region of the country. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IFb2dT at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Zachary L. Rhines, Esq. Munera Al-Fuhaid, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Austin, TX 78711-2548 Telephone: (512) 463-2120 Facsimile: (512) 320-0667 E-mail: zachary.rhines@oag.texas.gov munera.al-fuhaid@oag.texas.gov THARALDSON HOSPITALITY: Bello Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tharaldson Hospitality Staffing, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Francis Bello, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Tharaldson Hospitality Staffing, LLC, Does 1-50, Case No. 25CV026061 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 30, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Tharaldson Hospitality Management -- https://tharaldson.com/ -- own and operate top hotel brands across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis M. Benowitz, Esq. BENOWITZ LAW CORPORATION 8605 Santa Monica Blvd., Pmb 79183 West Hollywood, CA 90069-4109 Phone: 747-233-1600 Email: louis@benowitzlaw.com THEBGB INC: Faces Morales Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- FRANCISCA MORALES and BENITO VALENCIO SANTIAGO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THEBGB INC. d/b/a THE BREAD GAL BAKERY, BAKERY DIRECT INC. d/b/a THE BREAD GAL BAKERY, 840 EAST 28TH STREET, LLC d/b/a THE BREAD GAL BAKERY, and JESSICA SILLARO, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-17079 (D.N.J., October 31, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. Plaintiffs Morales and Valencio are former bakery production workers for The Bread Gal Bakery. Throughout their employment, Plaintiffs regularly worked up to 64 hours per workweek, but Defendants failed to pay them proper overtime wages at a rate of one and a half times their regular hourly wage rates for hours worked over 40 each workweek, says the suit. TheBGB Inc., d/b/a The Bread Gal Bakery, is a wholesale bakery in Paterson, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Galen C. Baynes, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9500 E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com baynes@pechmanlaw.com TOWN AND COUNTRY LIFE: Emmett Files Suit in D. Utah --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Town and Country Life Insurance, et al. The case is styled as Adrian Emmett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Town and Country Life Insurance doing business as: Samera Health Co., Inc., iFit, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00979-DBP (D. Utah, Oct. 30, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Town & Country Insurance -- https://www.towncountrylife.com/ -- is a full-service Independent Insurance Agency with seven locations throughout Central Iowa.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jacob D. Barney, Esq. ANDERSON & KARRENBERG 50 W. Broadway, Ste. 600 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 534-1700 Email: jbarney@aklawfirm.com TOWN AND COUNTRY LIFE: O'Grady Files Suit in D. Utah ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Town and Country Life Insurance, et al. The case is styled as John O'Grady, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Town and Country Life Insurance doing business as: Samera Health Co., Inc., iFit, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00978-RJS (D. Utah, Oct. 30, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Town & Country Insurance -- https://www.towncountrylife.com/ -- is a full-service Independent Insurance Agency with seven locations throughout Central Iowa.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jacob D. Barney, Esq. ANDERSON & KARRENBERG 50 W. Broadway, Ste. 600 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 534-1700 Email: jbarney@aklawfirm.com TOWN AND COUNTRY LIFE: Stagg Files Suit in D. Utah -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Town and Country Life Insurance, et al. The case is styled as Carter Stagg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Town and Country Life Insurance doing business as: Samera Health Co., Inc., iFit, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00980-AMA (D. Utah, Oct. 30, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Town & Country Insurance -- https://www.towncountrylife.com/ -- is a full-service Independent Insurance Agency with seven locations throughout Central Iowa.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jacob D. Barney, Esq. ANDERSON & KARRENBERG 50 W. Broadway, Ste. 600 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 534-1700 Email: jbarney@aklawfirm.com TOYOTA OF DALLAS: Mitchell Bid to Certify Class Nixed ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONN MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TOYOTA OF DALLAS, Case No. 3:23-cv-01278-N (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David Godbey entered an order concluding that the putative class is not sufficiently cohesive and that individualized issues of consent would predominate the trial if the Court certified this class. Thus, the Court denies Mitchell's motion to certify class. In an attempt to resolve the consent issue, Mitchell amended the proposed class definitions and limited the putative class to consumers who do not have a signed written agreement reconsenting to TOD's telemarketing messages. However, this amendment does not resolve all consent issues because, even if the amendment properly captured relevant consumers for the putative class, Verkhovskaya's methodology still fails to separate businesses from consumers. Thus, issues of consent would predominate the litigation and prevent cohesiveness in the class. Mitchell alleges that TOD sent 16,546 text messages to 1,539 customers who also opted out of further messages from TOD, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). He seeks to assert claims on behalf of two classes: Class 1: "All persons in the United States (i) who received more than one telemarketing message which was made for the purpose of encouraging the purchase of the Defendant's goods or services in any twelve month period since June 6, 2019, (ii) on a residential telephone number, (iii) where the telephone number was one for which within the previous five years the user had opted out of receiving additional messages from the Defendant at the time of receiving at least one such text message, (iv) where the text message contained one or more of the phrases (a) "request to send a text message", (b) "is texting the most convenient way", or (c) "is confirming request to send a message", and (v) were received more than 31 days after the user opted out of receiving additional messages from the Defendant." Class 2: "All persons in the state of Texas (i) who received more than one telemarketing message which was made for the purpose of encouraging the purchase of the Defendant's goods or services in any twelve month period since June 6, 2019, (ii) on a residential telephone number, (iii) where the telephone number was one for which within the previous five years the user had opted out of receiving additional messages from the Defendant at the time of receiving at least one such text message, (iv) where the text message contained one or more of the phrases (a) "request to send a text message", (b) "is texting the most convenient way", or (c) "is confirming request to send a message", and (v) were received more than 31 days after the user opted out of receiving additional messages from the Defendant." Toyota is a Toyota dealership in Dallas, Texas. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Oct. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MFDa7b at no extra charge.[CC] TRADER JOE: Sued Over "100% Juice" Organic Freezer Pops Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bagdonas of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Trader Joe's "100% Juice" Organic Freezer Pops are falsely advertised and labeled, given that the products also contain non-juice ingredients and are largely made from concentrate. The 16-page false advertising lawsuit contends that the front label of the Trader Joe's product is deceiving to consumers as it states that the pops are "100% juice" in large, colorful font while not as clearly disclosing that they also contain other, non-juice ingredients, including malic acid, vegetable juice and a thickening agent. Specifically, the case says, a consumer could only find the disclosure about the non-juice ingredients in small, dark font listed on the side of the label, along with the similarly sized full ingredients list on the back of the package. "A reasonable consumer, viewing the front label of the Products, would not understand that the Products contain substantial amounts of water, are made from concentrate, and contain a number of other non-juice ingredients, which is what the disclosure required by [the law] is designed to inform consumers," the Trader Joe's lawsuit summarizes. According to the complaint, federal regulations require the statement "100% Juice," when used for a product that contains non-juice ingredients, to be accompanied by a phrase disclosing that the food has added ingredients, preservatives or sweeteners, whichever is appropriate. The reason for this disclosure is to advise consumers that a product advertised as "100% Juice" might also contain significant amounts of other ingredients, or be made from concentrate, the suit explains. Although the front label of the Trader Joe's freezer pops at issue includes a "small, hard-to-read disclosure" that mentions that the products are "[f]lavored juice blends from concentrate with other natural flavors & added ingredients," the disclosure, in fact, does not "accompany" the "100% Juice" declaration as required by law, the complaint says. "Trader Joe's -- a grocery chain that has built its consumer reputation on the sale of organic, minimally processed, and unadulterated food products -- intentionally uses font, placement, color, and type size as relates to the required disclosure to give this false impression and deceive and mislead consumers," the lawsuit alleges. The plaintiff, a California resident, purchased the Trader Joe's freezer pops in March 2025, believing that the product was minimally processed or adulterated based on the item's packaging. The consumer claims to have suffered economic injury from Trader Joe's allegedly deceptive representations, particularly because he reasonably understood from product labeling that the freezer pops contained only expressed juice and were not made from concentrate. The Trader Joes class action lawsuit looks to cover any consumer in the United States who purchased Trader Joe's Organic Freezer Pops within four years prior to the filing of the complaint. [GN] TRADEWATER POINTE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Smith Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- AUDRA NICOLE SMITH and BRITTANY GRAY, individually and on behalf of those similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. TRADEWATER POINTE, LLC and CONCORD HEALTH SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00130-GNS (W.D. Ky., October 30, 2025) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act. The Defendants had Plaintiffs and similarly-situated employees work more than 40 hours in a workweek, but then failed to pay the full overtime rate of pay owed to the employees under the FLSA and KWHA, asserts the complaint. Specifically, the Defendants employed Plaintiffs and other non-exempt employees at Defendants' nursing home facilities in Kentucky and paid them hourly for their work. However, the Defendants did not pay the correct amount of overtime compensation for employees' overtime work. Instead, the Defendants paid Plaintiffs and the similarly-situated employees multiple types of compensation for their work performed, but only took into account certain of those types of compensation when calculating the overtime rate of pay of Plaintiffs and similarly-situated employees, says the suit. The Plaintiffs have each been employed by Defendant Tradewater working at Tradewater's nursing home in Dawson Springs, Kentucky for a portion of the three-year period preceding the filing of this complaint. Tradewater Pointe, LLC is a for-profit Kentucky limited liability company that provides nursing home services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark N. Foster, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC P.O. Box 869 Madisonville, KY 42431 Telephone: (270) 213-1303 E-mail: MFoster@MarkNFoster.com TRAVEL TECH MOHS: Ferrusquia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Travel Tech Mohs Services Inc., et al. The case is styled as Cecilia Ferrusquia, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Travel Tech Mohs Services, Inc., a California corporation, Does 1-100, Case No. 25CV025956 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 29, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Travel Tech Mohs Services, Inc. -- https://www.gotmohs.com/ -- is an on-site Mohs technician service that has many advantages other alternatives.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cody Stroman, Esq. EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS 1999 Harrison Street, 18th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (415) 362-1111 Email: info@employment-lawyers.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Women Drivers Sue Over Sex Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------ Rebecca Schneid and Richard Hall, writing for TIME, report that male drivers for Uber and Lyft are suing the companies over a feature that lets users hail only women drivers. The dual class action suits allege that the functions -- which followed thousands of sexual harassment and assault lawsuits against Uber and Lyft over the years -- have limited the economic opportunities for men and discriminated against them because of their gender. Lawyers acting for the plaintiffs argue that male drivers "are discriminated against and receive fewer and different rides than they otherwise would absent the policy." They contend that the policy "reinforces the gender stereotype that men are more dangerous than women." California has some of the nation's strongest anti-discrimination laws. The lawsuit accuses both Uber and Lyft of violating the Unruh Act, a California civil rights law that "expressly prohibits sex discrimination by business enterprises." They are seeking $4,000 in damages per male driver in California for violating state law. TIME has reached out to Uber and Lyft for comment. Two drivers were represented as plaintiffs in each lawsuit for the two companies, but the lawsuits estimate that the hundreds of thousands of male ride-sharing drivers could be covered by the class-action. The lawsuits were met with dismay from some users of the feature, who say it's vital for safety. "I just feel more safe and comfortable with a woman driver," Celeste Juarez, 28, told TIME. "I had many uncomfortable experiences with male drivers before. Especially going on a girls' night out." Juarez said she uses Uber's Women Preferences option all the time since it was rolled out, and said she thinks the lawsuits are "misguided." "As a woman, it's about my safety and getting to my destination without any repercussions or any unwanted sexual advances. With this option, I feel so much safer and don't have anxiety coming home late or have to worry about whether or not I will make it home," she said. Uber announced the program allowing female drivers and passengers to ride with other women in July, and it has since rolled out in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Detroit in the summer. "Across the US, women riders and drivers have told us they want the option to be matched with other women on trips," the company said in its announcement. "We've heard them -- and now we're introducing new ways to give them even more control over how they ride and drive." The feature was first introduced by Uber in 2019 in Saudi Arabia after a landmark law granting women the right to drive. Lyft's "Women+ Connect" program launched in 2023 in the United States, offering women and nonbinary drivers rides with drivers of the same gender, with first access in Chicago, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco, and San Jose. Several nonprofit organizations supported Lyft's decision at the time, including the Human Rights Campaign, the National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives (NAWLEE), and the National Sheriffs' Association Traffic Safety Committee. "Lyft is rolling out an inclusive product at a time when so many companies are shying away from explicit inclusion of transgender and non-binary people," Jay Brown of the Human Rights Campaign said when Lyft announced the program. "Women+ Connect was built with intentionality to make rideshare better for women and non-binary riders. When rideshare is better for these folks, it's better for everyone, and we at HRC stand behind that." History of assaults According to Uber's most recent U.S. Safety Report, which covered 2021 to 2022, they received 2,717 reports of serious sexual assault or misconduct; 68% of those reports were against drivers. The most common report included non-consensual touching and penetration. The latter accusation disproportionately affected women, who represented 89% of the survivors, while men represented 8%. In 2021, Lyft released a similar report that said that there were more than 1,800 reports of sexual assault during Lyft rides in 2019, and 4,000 reports of sexual assault during rides from 2017 to 2019. Labor groups have also questioned Uber and Lyft's safety regulations for drivers after one report found 50 drivers were killed on the job between 2017 and 2022. In July, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco, the judge presiding over more than 2,300 lawsuits against Uber for passengers who were sexually assaulted or harassed, did not dismiss the idea that the absence of a gender-matching feature on the app may lead to liability claims. Looming culture war The new program's introduction in the U.S. has already prompted backlash from conservative groups, most notably the Heritage Foundation, the right-wing think tank behind Project 2025. In early August, the think tank released a commentary that argued that the preference model violated sex discrimination laws. "Uber will be empowering its drivers to ignore, that is, discriminate against, male riders," the article, written by Heritage Foundation Legal Fellows Hans A. von Spakovsky and Sarah Parshall Perry. They connected the new feature to individual racial discrimination of taxi drivers against Black riders. Back when Lyft announced Women Connect, other alt-right personalities, including influencer Tomi Lahren, blasted the program. Yet, Uber and Lyft have maintained that the program was "highly requested" by women and non-binary users of their applications, and that the goal is to increase feelings of safety for these users. [GN] UNITED AIRLINES: Bids to Dismiss Window Seat Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mateusz Maszczynski of PYOK reports that United Airlines has asked a California district court to dismiss with prejudice a class action lawsuit brought by two travelers who allege the carrier has been charging an extra fee to sit at window seats that don't actually have a window. The lawsuit made headlines around the world when it was filed in August, arguing that United should be held liable for selling at least one million 'windowless window' seats to unsuspecting passengers over the years. The initial complaint was filed by Aviva Copaken and Marc Brenman, two United Airlines passengers, who claim they had either paid with cash or used United frequent flyer points to book window seats, only to then find that their seats didn't actually have windows. United Airlines has asked a California district court to dismiss with prejudice a class action lawsuit brought by two travelers who allege the carrier has been charging an extra fee to sit at window seats that don't actually have a window. The lawsuit made headlines around the world when it was filed in August, arguing that United should be held liable for selling at least one million 'windowless window' seats to unsuspecting passengers over the years. The initial complaint was filed by Aviva Copaken and Marc Brenman, two United Airlines passengers, who claim they had either paid with cash or used United frequent flyer points to book window seats, only to then find that their seats didn't actually have windows. 79-Year-Old Disabled Passenger Says American Airlines Crew Burst Into Lavatory, Called Police On Him Over Made Up Allegation Aviva had paid up to $169.99 in additional fees to secure a window seat because she suffers from claustrophobia which is relieved by looking out of the window of the airplane. She had used the United Airlines mobile app to select her preferred seat for an additional fee and selected what was marked as a 'window seat' on the online seat map. What she didn't know, however, was that the seat she had chosen didn't have a window due to the alignment of the seats along the fuselage of the aircraft. This is an issue that is particularly well known on some aircraft types, especially certain models of the Boeing 737, where the aircraft is manufactured without a window at row 11. This is also the case on some Airbus A320 series aircraft, as well as the Boeing 787 Dreamliner range. Despite the fact that this issue is well known, however, the lawsuit alleges that United continues to deceive passengers by clearly marking windowless window seats as 'window seats' in its online seat maps. The airline also annotates these seats as having a window on mobile and paper boarding passes, but United says there's a very simple explanation for this, and just because it's advertised as a window seat doesn't actually mean there's any guarantee you'll get a window. United is one of the few airlines that uses a boarding method known as WILMA, which stands for 'Window, Middle, Aisle', in which passengers sitting in window seats are asked to board first, followed by middle seat passengers, and then finally passengers sitting in aisle seats. WILMA is designed to make the boarding process as efficient as boarding, but to make it work, the airline has to clearly state on a passenger's boarding pass if they are in a Window, Middle, or Aisle seat -- even if the window seat doesn't necessarily have a window. "The use of the word 'window' in reference to a particular seat cannot reasonably be interpreted as a promise that the seat will have an exterior window view," United's attorneys say in their 22-page request to have the class action suit dismissed. "Rather, the word 'window' identifies the position of the seat—i.e., next to the wall of the main body of the aircraft." United's response adds: "Nothing in the screenshots [of boarding passes and online seat maps] indicates that the labeling of a seat as 'window' signifies anything other than the position of the seat on the aircraft." But even if passengers are misled by United's online seat maps and boarding passes, the airline says the suit should be thrown out on the grounds that its conditions of carriage preclude any implied promise that a window seat should actually have a window. United accepts that if a passenger paid for an amenity, then the contract of carriage allows for a refund of that fee, but puts an onus on the customer to request that refund within 90 days. In the case of windowless, window seats, however, United argues that it never promised passengers who booked a window seat would get an exterior window view, but rather just a position next to the exterior wall of the aircraft. "Plaintiffs have not alleged a clear and unambiguous promise by United . . . nor have they sufficiently alleged that their supposed reliance on the word 'window' . . . was either reasonable or foreseeable," United adds in its request to have the suit dismissed. How to avoid a windowless window seat While some airlines do now proactively annotate their online seat maps with which window seats don't actually come with a window, the same can't be said of most carriers. There are, however, some other ways to avoid this pitfall, and perhaps the most accurate is using the independent seat map website Aerolopa. Simply select the airline you are flying with and then the aircraft type you will be flying on, and it pulls up a detailed seat map. In the case of United's Boeing 737-800 fleet, the seat map clearly shows a missing window at row 11 and only a partial view from row 12. The one problem with Aerolopa is that you first need to know what aircraft type you will be flying on. This is usually indicated on the airline's own online seat booking tool, although bear in mind that the aircraft type could be swapped right up to the departure time. [GN] UNITED NATURAL: Sills Bid to File Opposition to Sur-reply Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAN SILLS and GEORGE DICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC., J. ALEXANDER MILLER DOUGLAS, JOHN W. HOWARD, and CHRISTOPHER P. TESTA, Case No. 1:23-cv-02364-JGLC-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Figueredo entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' request for leave to file a 15-page brief in opposition to the Defendants' sur-reply. As a basis for the need to file a sur-sur-reply, the Plaintiffs first argue that Defendants raise new arguments regarding the damages methodology in their sur-reply. But the statements Defendants make about "observed volatility" respond to new statements made in Plaintiffs' reply brief and reply expert report. Plaintiffs next contend that Defendants raise new arguments regarding price impact in their sur-reply. However, to the extent Defendants argued that Plaintiffs would have known of the purportedly concealed issues by no later than March 8, 2023, Defendants made this argument in support of their contention that the class period must end on March 8, which is an argument Defendants raised in their opposition brief. The Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants make new arguments about quantification matching in their sur-reply. But Plaintiffs cite to pages where Defendants are responding to arguments raised by Plaintiffs in their reply. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants cite new cases in their sur-reply. But Defendants cite these cases to support responses to arguments raised by Plaintiffs in their reply brief. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ letter motion for leave to file a sur-sur-reply is denied. The motion for class certification is now fully briefed. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 149. United engages in the distribution and retail of natural, organic, and specialty foods, as well as non-food products. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ls91a5 at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED PARCEL: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Cargo Plane Crash ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Bolgan, writing for WHAS-TV, reports that a lawsuit has been filed against UPS, General Electric and Boeing after one of UPS's cargo planes crashed near the Louisville international airport on Tuesday, November 4, killing at least 13 people. The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of people and businesses affected by the crash and the explosion that followed. The lawsuit claims the plaintiffs, Shakeara Ware, Triple D, Inc., and Ensey LLC, along with many other class members, had their lives and businesses "turned upside down" as a result of the plane crash. Ware was at home nearby as the crash and explosion of the UPS jet shook her home, toxic smoke and soot filled her lungs, according to the lawsuit. After she was released from shelter in-place orders, she went to the emergency room for treatment of her injuries. Triple D, Inc. is an automotive repair shop located in the path of the plane crash. The suit claims the entire business, including but not limited to its machinery, personal property, customers' vehicles, and other assets were all destroyed. Ensey LLC also owned property in the path of the wreckage. The lawsuit says the property is now subject to "chemical contamination and significantly diminished value and inability to maintain rental income," as the result of the crash. "Defendants' recklessness has upended the lives and livelihoods of Plaintiffs and numerous Kentuckians, who live with trauma, fear and uncertainty caused by Defendants' actions," the lawsuit states. There are more than 100 class members and plaintiffs in the lawsuit, with the amount in controversy exceeding $5 million. The complaint alleges that the plane crash acted like a bomb, igniting 220,000 pounds of jet fuel, as well as combustible materials in surrounding locations. Due to these surrounding materials, the lawsuit alleges that multiple explosions, and massive plumes of fire and smoke burst from the plane and the structures it hit, causing multiple deaths, personal injuries, and massive property damage. Below is a statement from Morgan & Morgan attorneys Mike Morgan, Rene Rocha and Tanner Shultz: "This tragedy has needlessly shattered the lives of many in the Louisville community. Our clients and others began their day like any other, and they are now left grappling with how and why this catastrophe could have happened. We are committed to uncovering the truth and will stop at nothing to achieve justice." [GN] UNITED STATES: Gonzalez Sues Over Immigration Enforcement Operation ------------------------------------------------------------------- PABLO MORENO GONZALEZ, FELIPE AGUSTIN ZAMACONA, and a class of similarly situated people, Plaintiffs v. KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity; TODD LYONS, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; MARCOS CHARLES, Acting Executive Associate Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Removal Operations, in his official capacity; SAMUEL OLSON, Interim Chicago Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; GREGORY BOVINO, Commander-at-Large, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in his official capacity; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; and the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-13323 (N.D. Ill., October 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the U.S. Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. According to the complaint, the federal authorities are conducting a massive and inhumane immigration enforcement operation in the Chicago area -- Operation Midway Blitz. Under Defendants' authority, huge numbers of people are being arrested and detained. Most have been brought to what is being used as a de facto immigration detention facility right outside the city limits: the Broadview ICE facility at 1930 Beach Street, Broadview, Illinois, where Defendants are perpetrating mass constitutional violations. The Plaintiffs and the putative class members are immigration detainees who have been arrested by officers operating under Defendants' command. They are being confined at Broadview inside overcrowded holding cells containing dozens of people at a time. People are forced to attempt to sleep for days or sometimes weeks on plastic chairs or on the filthy concrete floor. They are denied sufficient food and water. They cannot shower, they are denied soap, hygiene items, and menstrual products, and they have no way to clean themselves. They are often denied a change of clothes. These conditions result in widespread sleep deprivation for the putative class, asserts the suit. The Defendants know and intend that the conditions they have created in Broadview are resulting in the inhumane treatment of Plaintiffs and the putative class members. This case asks the Court to enforce Defendants' compliance with their obligations by ordering ready access to counsel and humane conditions of confinement. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to order Defendants to stop flouting the law inside Broadview. Kristi Noem is sued in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexa Van Brunt, Esq. Jonathan Manes, Esq. Danielle Berkowsky, Esq. Chisato Kimura, Esq. MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER 160 E. Grand Avenue, 6th floor Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (312) 503-1336 E-mail: alexa.vanbrunt@macarthurjustice.org jonathan.manes@macarthurjustice.org danielle.berkowsky@macarthurjustice.org chisato.kimura@macarthurjustice.org - and - Kevin M. Fee, Esq. Michelle T. Garcia, Esq. Rebecca K. Glenberg, Esq. Samuel Cole, Esq. Jennifer Stark, Esq. Kathleen Hickey, Esq. ROGER BALDWIN FOUNDATION OF ACLU, INC. 150 N. Michigan, Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 201-9740 Facsimile: (312) 288-5225 E-mail: kfee@aclu-il.org mgarcia@aclu-il.org rglenberg@aclu-il.org scole@aclu-il.org jstark@aclu-il.org khickey@aclu-il.org - and - Nathan P. Eimer, Esq. Scott C. Solberg, Esq. Michael L. McCluggage, Esq. James B. Speta, Esq. Lisa S. Meyer, Esq. Brent R. Austin, Esq. EIMER STAHL LLP 224 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 660-7600 E-mail: neimer@eimerstahl.com ssolberg@eimerstahl.com mmccluggage@eimerstahl.com jspeta@eimerstahl.com lmeyer@eimerstahl.com baustin@eimerstahl.com UNITED STATES: Venegas Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEONARDO GARCIA VENEGAS, v. TOM HOMAN, WHITE HOUSE BORDER CZAR, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, ET AL., Case No. 1:25-cv-00397-JB-C (S.D. Ala.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying three classes for declaratory and injunctive relief: Warrantless Entry Class. "All U.S. citizens and lawful residents in this District who, while working in non-public areas of private construction sites, have been or will be subject to the Warrantless Entry Policy." Preemptive Detention Class. "All U.S. citizens and lawful residents in this District who, while working a construction job, have been or will be subject to the Preemptive Detention Policy." Continued Detention Class. "All U.S. citizens and lawful residents in this District who, while working a construction job, have been or will be subject to the Continued Detention Policy." Alternatively, the Plaintiff asks the Court to "provisionally certify [the] class[es] for purposes of [his contemporaneously filed] preliminary injunction [motion]." The Plaintiff requests oral argument on this motion, together with his preliminary injunction motion, because they pose important and complex constitutional and legal questions of grave public importance. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SjQKNx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jared McClain, Esq. Jaba Tsitsuashvili, Esq. Joshua Windham, Esq. INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22203 Telephone: (703) 682-9320 E-mail: jmcclain@ij.org UNITED SURGICAL PARTNERS: Janosky Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Dara Janosky, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. United Surgical Partners International, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00068 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on Oct. 30, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02934-S to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). United Surgical Partners International, Inc. (USPI) -- https://www.uspi.com/ -- is an American ambulatory care company based in Dallas, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly Dodson, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD, LLP - NY 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (929) 263-4066 Email: kdodson@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com - and - Leslie L Pescia, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 101 North Seventh Street, Suite #827 Louisville, KY 40202 Phone: (646) 448-6466 Email: lpescia@sirillp.com The Defendant is represented by: Ashley Elizabeth Johnson, Esq. Karl G. Nelson, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2100 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 698-3111 Fax: (214) 571-2949 Email: ajohnson@gibsondunn.com knelson@gibsondunn.com - and - Jennafer Marie Tryck, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 S Grand Ave Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 229-7000 Fax: (213) 229-7520 Email: jtryck@gibsondunn.com URNER BARRY: Conspires to Fix Prices of Eggs, Class Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- CPI reports that a group of major U.S. egg producers is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit accusing them of colluding to fix prices while publicly attributing rising costs to bird flu outbreaks. The complaint, filed by supermarket chain King Kullen in an Indiana federal court, alleges that the companies manipulated market benchmarks to maintain inflated prices in violation of basic principles of "justice, equity, and good conscience," according to a statement from the filing. The lawsuit names the nation's largest conventional egg producers and data publisher Urner Barry as defendants. Per a statement included in the complaint, the companies conspired with Urner Barry, whose published pricing benchmarks serve as a key industry reference, to "communicate, monitor and enforce" a coordinated pricing strategy. Urner Barry's price reporting system, which relies heavily on self-reported data from dominant producers, allegedly enabled these firms to artificially raise benchmark prices. According to a statement in the court filing, the producers submitted inflated price data to Urner Barry to push its benchmark higher, creating an industry-wide effect on retail prices. The lawsuit contends that this manipulation contributed to a surge in egg costs, with the average price for a dozen eggs peaking at $6.23 in March, based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The complaint also challenges the producers' explanation that avian flu outbreaks were primarily responsible for the price hikes. While the disease led to the culling of millions of hens starting in late 2021, the lawsuit argues that the scale of the outbreaks did not justify the sustained increases in consumer prices. Instead, per the plaintiffs' statement, the bird flu was used as a convenient pretext to conceal an illegal price-fixing scheme. Egg prices, which spiked sharply through 2023 and 2024, have since declined. However, the class action seeks to hold producers accountable for what it characterizes as years of "artificially inflated profits" at the expense of consumers and retailers nationwide. [GN] VANDE AYURWELL: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vande Ayurwell, LLC. The case is styled as Erin Wilson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Vande Ayurwell, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-06219-MLB (N.D. Ga., Oct. 30, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Vande Ayurwell, LLC -- https://www.vandewellness.com/ -- specialize in helping clients create a state of vibrant and optimum health through the science of cellular detoxification.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Valerie Lorraine Chinn, Esq. CHINN LAW FIRM, LLC 245 N. Highland Ave., Suite 230 #7 Atlanta, GA 30307 Phone: (404) 626-2098 Email: vchinn@chinnlawfirm.com VAUGHAN MCLEAN: DeMetro Seeks Reconsideration of Claim Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHERINE DeMETRO, et al., v. VAUGHAN MCLEAN LLC, et al, Case No. 1:24-cv-02199-APM (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order reconsidering its September 30th ruling and reinstate Count II of Plaintiffs' amended complaint under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act ("CPPA"). On June 20, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a six count civil complaint in the D.C. Superior Court against Vaughan McLean LLC and several other defendants alleging various causes of action relating to Vaughan McLean's sale of the 389 units it owned in the McLean Gardens Condominium Complex. On about July 26, 2024, before any Defendant had filed an answer, the Plaintiffs' case was removed to Federal Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Vaughan provides legal services focused on litigation and defense for businesses and organizations. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UYq8OX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew P. McGuire, Esq. IN REM PLLC 1809 20th Street NW, Suite 52 Washington DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 618-3461 E-mail: mcguireesquire@msn.com - and - Aristotle Theresa, Esq. STOOP LAW PLLC 1604 V Street SE Washington DC 20020 Telephone: (202) 651-1148 The Defendants are represented by: Constantinos Panagopoulos, Esq. Sarabeth Ranghia, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR, LLC 1909 K Street NW, 12th Floor Washington DC 20006 - and - Robert C. Gill, Esq. Jason W. McElroy, Esq. Kyra A. Smerkanich, Esq. SAUL EWING LLP 1919 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 550 Washington, DC 20006 VITAL PROTEINS: Mackey Suit Removed to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Hunter Mackey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VITAL PROTEINS, LLC, Case No. CACE-25-014355 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, to the United States District Court for Southern District of Florida on Oct. 30, 2025, and assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-62202-MD. The Complaint filed in the State Court Action alleges that Vital Proteins sent a text message to Plaintiff's cellphone in violation of the "Caller ID Rules" of the Florida Telephone Solicitations Act ("FTSA"), because the text messages were sent using an SMS short code which could not be called back.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Matthew C. Luzadder, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 333 West Wacker Drive, 26th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 857-7070 Fax: (312) 857-7095 Email: mluzadder@kelleydrye.co VIVOS XPOINT: Tenants File Class Action Suit Over Illegal Lease --------------------------------------------------------------- Bart Pfankuch of The Brookings Register reports that a new class-action lawsuit, if successful, could require the California owner of former military munitions bunkers near Edgemont to pay more than $17 million to people who rent the so-called igloos for use as homes or shelters to protect them in the case of a global catastrophe. The lawsuit filed in Fall River County Circuit Court alleges on a basic level that Vivos xPoint Investment Group, the owner of the Vivos xPoint bunker complex, uses an illegal lease that is unenforceable and violates the rights of the bunker residents. The lawsuit is similar in its claims to an earlier case filed by an individual former resident of the Vivos complex that challenged the legality of the bunker lease. That claim was upheld by a circuit court judge but has been appealed by the complex owner and is awaiting a hearing before the South Dakota Supreme Court. The new lawsuit also alleges that the investment group made "deceptive and misleading statements" by promising to provide numerous amenities at the bunker complex, most of which have never been built. It seeks a return of all money paid to Vivos by more than 150 tenants. Where weapons once sat, people now live The Vivos xPoint community includes hundreds of above-ground, earth-covered concrete bunkers that were used by the U.S. military from 1942 to 1967 to store conventional and chemical munitions in a town once known as Igloo. A large portion of the former Black Hills Army Depot munitions facility was purchased and developed in 2016 by California businessman Robert Vicino. The 2,200-square-foot bunkers are now rented as residences, mostly to survivalists, or "preppers," who want to live off the grid and be positioned to survive a global catastrophe. According to prior reporting by News Watch, the residential community located on windswept prairie land 8 miles south of Edgemont has been beset by conflicts between residents and employees, numerous lawsuits, several complaints to the state attorney general's office and a near-fatal shooting of a complex employee by a tenant in 2024. After a grand jury review, the tenant was not charged. News Watch interviewed more than a dozen people, reviewed hundreds of pages of court records, examined emails and internal Vivos communications, filed three open-records requests and visited the Vivos site to understand the unrest that exists within the community. Records in the South Dakota Secretary of State's office show the investment group is licensed to Vicino. He is also the owner of a parent company called Vivos Group, which states on its Vivos Global Shelter Network website that it provides access to bunker complexes in South Dakota as well as at other sites in the U.S. and Europe. Vicino did not return a call from News Watch seeking comment, and his attorney, Eric Schlimgen of Spearfish, also did not return calls or an email seeking comment. In a prior interview, Vicino told News Watch that those who complain at Vivos xPoint are "bad apples" and that most tenants are happy with their treatment. Lease signed by tenants at heart of lawsuits People who live in the bunkers or have them ready to occupy do not buy them outright. Instead, they pay an upfront fee of up to $55,000 and sign a 99-year lease that governs the landlord-tenant relationship. The 14-page lease and an accompanying long list of community rules became the subject of lawsuits after they were used as the basis to evict several bunker residents who then lost the right to occupy the bunkers despite paying the upfront fees and a monthly service fee. The lease requires tenants to use their own money to make the bunkers habitable, including installing basic utilities. The lease then allows Vivos to evict tenants while retaining the value of those improvements, said J. Scott James, a Custer attorney representing plaintiffs. James previously told News Watch that Vivos finds ways to evict tenants and then re-leases their bunkers with a requirement that new tenants still pay the upfront and monthly fees. James said the class-action lawsuit is a natural progression in the legal claims against Vivos xPoint, so far upheld in court, that now makes it possible for all bunker renters to seek financial remedies. The case was filed prior to the ruling by the Supreme Court on the first case because Scott said tenants told him that the complex ownership was offering or was about to offer tenants a new lease that would have reduced or eliminated their rights to sue. Just as in the case before the Supreme Court, the class-action lawsuit argues that the Vivos lease is illegal because it is "illusory," a legal term that essentially means the complex ownership can change the contract at any time without consideration or approval of the tenants. "The unfettered ability of Vivos to unilaterally change material provisions of the lease, as well as the ability to evict (tenants) . . . makes the lease illusory, unlawful and unenforceable," the lawsuit states. The case makes a further separate argument that the lease is invalid because it does not comply with a South Dakota law that requires landlords to provide basic utilities, services and upkeep. The existing lease, which requires tenants to install their own electricity, water, plumbing, sewer and communication services, would therefore be illegal under state law, James said. Amenities promised but not provided The new lawsuit also raises consumer protection arguments in that Vivos has failed to follow through on promises made to tenants before they signed the lease, James said. "The way Vivos marketed this development and these bunkers to these folks contained a lot of deceptive material, and so they were made a lot of promises," he said. "People were given tours and told that there's a medical facility, and there's not a medical facility. They were told, 'You're going to get a gymnasium and a laundry, and all this kind of stuff is going to happen.'" James said none of those amenities have been provided, even several years after the promises were made. He added that trash pickup, security services and road maintenance have been spotty over the years. The new lawsuit was filed Sept. 16 on behalf of six people who leased bunkers in the complex, including two who live there and four others who live elsewhere but lease a bunker to be ready if needed. If class-action status is granted, as many as 150 bunker lessees would qualify for settlement money unless they specifically opt out, James said. He said that as word of a possible class-action case spread through the Vivos complex, he has already heard from more than 40 tenants interested in knowing more about it. Millions in remedies sought for tenants The lawsuit seeks a return of all money paid to Vivos by tenants, including the up-front lease fees ranging from $25,000 to $55,000 per tenant, the money tenants spent on improving the bunkers to make them habitable and the monthly common area amenity fees. It also calls for payment of attorney fees and possible punitive damages. After doing a rough calculation, James estimated Vivos could have to pay the tenants more than $17 million if the lawsuit is upheld, which would be in addition to any attorney fees or damages. If Vivos cannot pay, the lawsuit contends that the tenants would then be allowed to take ownership of the leased bunkers and land beneath them, James said. [GN] VONS COMPANIES: Class Cert. Filing in Sandoval Due Jan. 14, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERTO SANDOVAL CARRILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE VONS COMPANIES, INC.; ONE SOURCE TECHNOLOGY LLC d/b/a ASURINT, and DOES 1-5. Case No. 8:25-cv-00191-SRM-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting ex parte application to continue class discovery deadline and class certification briefing deadlines by six weeks. The motion is made on the grounds that the parties have a second Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) scheduled with Judge Karen E. Scott for Nov. 7, 2025, to discuss Plaintiff's class discovery disputes, which falls after the October 31 class discovery deadline. The Defendant has substantially delayed providing class discovery, and even after the parties' first IDC on September 29, Vons has continued to provide deficient responses and productions. As a result, the Plaintiff is still in the process of gathering class discovery. The discovery at issue is material to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Thus, to give Plaintiff sufficient time to complete class discovery and prepare his class certification motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court continue the current class certification deadlines by six weeks, pursuant to the following briefing schedule: Event Deadline Class Certification – Discovery Cut-off: Dec. 12, 2025 Class Certification – Motion for Jan. 14, 2026 Class Certification Deadline: Class Certification – Opposition Deadline: Feb. 18, 2026 Class Certification – Reply Deadline: Mar. 25, 2026 Class Certification Motion Hearing: Apr. 15, 2026 The Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial alleging violations of the California Megan’s Law, Penal Code section 290.46, the California Fair Chance Act, Government Code § 12952; and the California Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code § 17200. Vons is a Southern California-based supermarket chain. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4psvQA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Y. Kim, Esq. RAY KIM LAW, APC 112 E. Amerige Avenue, Suite 240 Fullerton, CA 92832 Telephone: (833) 729-5529 Facsimile: (833) 972-9546 E-mail: ray@raykimlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Karimah J. Lamar, Esq. Christine Fitzgerald, Esq. Robert Geiger, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 232 -0441 Facsimile: (619) 232-4302 E-mail: klamar@littler.com cfitzgerald@littler.com rgeiger@littler.com - and - Jasmine Stanzick, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: jstanzick@seyfarth.com WALGREEN PHARMACY: Class Cert. Filing in Parker Due Nov. 9, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN PARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES MIDWEST, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-05624-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Settle entered an order Deadline for joining additional parties Jan. 23, 2026 and to amend pleadings: Discovery Cutoff: Oct. 12, 2026 The Defendants' disclosure of experts Oct. 16, 2026 related to class certification: The Plaintiff's disclosure of rebuttal Oct. 23, 2026 experts related to class certification: Deadline to complete expert depositions: Nov. 6, 2026 The Plaintiff's motion for class Nov. 9, 2026 certification due: The Defendants' response to the Plaintiff's Dec. 7, 2026 motion for class certification due: The Plaintiff's reply due: Dec. 21, 2026 Hearing on motion for class certification: To be set by the Court Walgreens is an Illinois-based subsidiary of Walgreens, which is part of the parent company Walgreens Boots Alliance. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nBNF4N at no extra charge.[CC] WALMART INC: Jacklick Suit Removed to E.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tarry Jacklick, individually and on Behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALMART, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 25-2-03951-32 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of Washington in and for Spokane County, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of Washington on Oct. 30, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00436. The Plaintiff seeks to recover allegedly compensatory and exemplary damages arising from Walmart's allegedly noncompliant provision of rest breaks, overtime, unlawful withholding, and paid sick leave. Additionally, the Complaint seeks a statutory award of attorneys' fees under RCW 49.48.030, 49.52.070, and 49.46.090, double damages under 49.52.070, pre- and post-judgment interest, injunctive, and declaratory relief.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Adam T. Pankratz, Esq. E. Ashley Paynter, Esq. Lauren S. Titchbourne, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 5150 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 693-7057 Facsimile: (206) 693-7058 Email: adam.pankratz@ogletree.com ashley.paynter@ogletree.com lauren.titchbourne@ogletree.com WALMART INC: Kincannon Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Allan Kincannon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, Case No. 25-2-27807-7 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of Washington for King County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Oct. 30, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02151. The Complaint seeks: compensation, at each affected employee's regular rate of pay, for each day that a meal period was not provided; compensation, at each affected employee's regular rate of pay, for any missed rest periods; compensation for any unpaid overtime; compensation for amounts allegedly due and owing under the Washington Minimum Wage Act; compensation for the alleged failure to accrue and allow the use of paid sick leave; compensation for alleged unlawful deductions and rebates; and compensation for the alleged failure to pay all wages due at termination.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Winthrop Hubbard, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Phone: (818) 230-7502 Fax: (818) 230-7259 Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com stavos@justicelawcorp.com whubbard@justicelawcorp.com The Defendants are represented by: Matthew J. Macario, Esq. Jeremy F. Wood, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1700 7th Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-682-2308 Facsimile: 206-682-7908 Email: mmacario@fisherphillips.com jwood@fisherphillips.com WASHINGTON FINE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 11, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA BRANSON and CHERIE BURKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WASHINGTON FINE WINE & SPIRITS, LLC, a Washington limited liability company doing business as TOTAL WINE & MORE; and DOES 1–20, Case No. 2:24-cv-00589-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Chun entered a stipulated case schedule and order: Event Date Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file Feb. 11, 2026 their motion for class certification: Deadline for the Defendant to file its 30 days after Response: service of motion Deadline for the Plaintiffs to file 15 days after their reply: service of response Plaintiffs' Disclosure of Expert Sept. 21, 2026 Testimony: Defendants' Disclosure of Expert Oct. 12, 2026 Testimony (FRCP 26(a)(2)): Disclosure of Rebuttal Expert Oct. 26, 2026 Testimony (FRCP 26(a)(2)): All Discovery Motions Filed by: Oct. 26, 2026 Discovery Completed by Dec. 4, 2026 Total is an American alcohol retailer founded and led by brothers David and Robert Trone. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2Wcy9f at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. EMERY | REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 442-9106 E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com - and - Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq. Kim D. Stephens, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 E-mail: rsolomon@tousley.com kstephens@tousley.com The Defendants are represented by: Malaika M. Eaton, Esq. McNAUL EBEL NAWROT & HELGREN PLLC 600 University Street, Suite 2700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 467-1816 E-mail: meaton@mcnaul.com - and - William J. Murphy, Esq. John J. Connolly, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 332-0444 E-mail: wmurphy@zuckerman.com jconnolly@zuckerman.com WAYFAIR LLC: Mollins Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kenneth M. Mollins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WAYFAIR LLC, Case No. 625506/2025 was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, to the United States District Court for Eastern District of New York on Oct. 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-06051. In the Complaint, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of putative class members, asserts claims against Wayfair for allegedly engaging in deceptive acts and practices in violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Section 349 (Count I), false advertising in violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Section 350 (Count II), breach of express and implied warranties (Count III), and unjust enrichment (Count IV). These causes of action arise out of Plaintiff's purchase of certain products from Wayfair that he alleges were deceptively marketed due to their branding, product specifications, and assembly instructions.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Wayne F. Dennison, Esq. BROWN RUDNICK LLP One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 Phone: (617) 856-8200 Facsimile (617) 856-8201 Email: wdennison@brownrudnick.com WEST PHARMACEUTICAL: NWT Pension Fund Files Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2025 that on May 5, 2025, New England Teamsters Pension Fund filed a class action against the company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, purportedly on behalf of a class of the company's investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock between February 16, 2023 and February 12, 2025. On July 23, 2025, the court appointed lead plaintiffs in the action. On October 15, 2025, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with 1) various public statements made by the company and certain current and former officers regarding its business, operations and prospects and 2) certain current and former officers' transactions in the Company's stock. The action seeks unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. The defendants intend to vigorously defend against such allegations. West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. is a manufacturer of integrated containment and delivery systems for injectable drugs and healthcare products including a variety of primary proprietary packaging, containment solutions, reconstitution and transfer systems, and drug delivery systems, as well as contract manufacturing, analytical lab services and integrated solutions. WESTERN ALLIANCE: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Western Alliance Bancorporation (NYSE: WAL) resulting from allegations that Western Alliance Bancorporation may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So what: If you purchased Western Alliance Bancorporation securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=46349 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On October 16, 2025, Western Alliance Bancorporation disclosed that it had initiated a lawsuit against a borrower, Cantor Group V LLC, alleging fraud related to collateral loans. On this news, Western Alliance Bancorporation stock fell -10.88% on October 16, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. At the time Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] WESTFIELD INS.: Englehart Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westfield Insurance Company. The case is styled as Dean R. Englehart, Robbin L. Englehart, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. Westfield Insurance Company, Case No. 251003380 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., Oct. 28, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Westfield Insurance -- https://www.westfieldinsurance.com/ -- the primary subsidiary of Westfield Group, is a multi-line provider of business property and liability insurance, personal lines insurance, agribusiness insurance, and surety bonds.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dennis C. Coyne, Esq. HAGGERTY, GOLDBERG, SCHLEIFER & KUPERSMITH, P.C. 1801 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (267) 350-6600 WILKES BARRE, PA: Bid for Class Certification Due March 30, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Genesis Arias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. City of Wilkes Barre and City of Wilkes Barre Police Civil Service Commission, Case No. 3:24-cv-01517-JFS (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Saporito, Jr. entered an order an extension of the existing expert disclosure deadline is warranted, and request that the Court modify the deadlines in its May 15, 2025, scheduling as follows: -- The Plaintiff shall submit any affirmative expert report no later than Feb. 2, 2026. -- Responsive expert reports, if any, shall be served no later than Mar. 2, 2026. -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, if any, and any motions for summary judgment, if any, shall be filed no later than Mar. 30, 2026. The extension of these deadlines will not affect any other deadlines. Wilkes-Barre is a city located at the center of the Wyoming Valley in Northeastern Pennsylvania. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3dNKvh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. Deirdre Aaron, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 The Defendants are represented by: Drew P. McLaughlin ELLIOTT GREENLEAF, P.C. 15 Public Square, Suite 210 Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701 Telephone: (570) 371-5290 E-mail: DPM@elliottgreenleaf.com WINCO HOLDINGS: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Ayala Due Sept. 11, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDRES AYALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WINCO HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-05653-BHS (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Settle entered an order setting class certification briefing schedule: Deadline for joining additional parties Dec. 19, 2025 and to amend pleadings: The Defendants' disclosure of experts Aug. 7, 2026 related to class certification: The Plaintiff's disclosure of rebuttal Aug. 14, 2026 experts related to class certification: Deadline to complete expert depositions: Sept. 4, 2026 The Plaintiff's motion for class Sept. 11, 2026 certification due: The Defendants' response to the Plaintiff's Oct. 9, 2026 motion for class certification due: The Plaintiff's reply due: Oct. 23, 2026 Hearing on motion for class certification: TBD Winco operates as a holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jQ2H8E at no extra charge.[CC] WORLDWIDE TRAVEL: Underpays Licensed Practical Nurses, McCowen Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- DEANA MCCOWEN, individually and for others similarly situated v. WORLDWIDE TRAVEL STAFFING, LIMITED, Case No. 1:25-cv-01123 (W.D.N.Y., October 31, 2025) is a class and collective action to recover unpaid wages and other damages owed by Worldwide Travel Staffing, Limited under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Kansas Wage Payment Act. Plaintiff McCowen regularly worked 12 hours a day, 4 days a week. But Worldwide did not pay McCowen at least 1.5 times her regular rates of pay -- based on all remuneration -- for all hours worked after 40 in a week. Instead, Worldwide paid McCowen non-discretionary bonuses that it excluded from the "regular rate" for overtime purposes. Plaintiff McCowen worked for Worldwide as a licensed practical nurse from approximately June 2022 to April 2025 in the Larned State Hospital in Pawnee County, Kansas. Worldwide Travel Staffing, Limited provides recruitment services for the professional healthcare industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Gattuso, Esq. Ryan G. Files, Esq. GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC 7030 East Genesee Street Fayetteville, NY 13066 Telephone: (315) 314-8000 Facsimile: (315) 446-7521 E-mail: rfiles@gclawoffice.com fgattuso@gclawoffice.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com YAMAHA MOTOR: Fails to Deliver Free E-Bike Battery, Class Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that a group of consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Yamaha Motor Corp. U.S.A. Inc. Why: They claim Yamaha failed to deliver a free battery it promised to consumers who purchased a qualifying Yamaha e-bike. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Florida federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Yamaha Motor Corp. U.S.A. Inc. failed to deliver a free battery it promised to consumers who purchased one of the company's qualifying e-bikes. Plaintiff Charles Ellert and four others claim Yamaha failed to honor the free battery promotion despite it being a material and significant inducement to purchase the Yamaha e-bike. "Yamaha's failure to honor the Free 2nd Battery as advertised is, among other things, an unfair and deceptive trade practice in violation of state consumer protection laws," the Yamaha e-bike class action lawsuit says. Ellert and the other plaintiffs want to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased a qualifying Yamaha e-bike from Yamaha or an authorized Yamaha dealer and were not provided with a free second battery after registering their e-bike. Class action: Yamaha failed to deliver free battery due to 'fluid situation' Ellert and the other plaintiffs argue Yamaha's failure to honor its free battery promotion also constitutes a breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. "Yamaha provided contradicting representations about whether it would or could deliver Free 2nd Batteries, while also stating multiple times that the inability to provide qualifying customers a Free 2nd Battery was "a fluid situation," the lawsuit says. The plaintiffs claim Yamaha has been unjustly enriched by its conduct and that they have suffered damages by not receiving the free second battery they were promised as part of the promotion. Ellert and the other plaintiffs claim Yamaha is guilty of breach of contract and unjust enrichment and of violating Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, the New York General Business Law and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and request declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of actual and consequential damages for themselves and all class members. In a separate class action lawsuit, consumers are suing Yamaha over its WaveRunner personal watercraft which they say is substantially impaired and can only be safely used for one-half its designed range. The plaintiffs are represented by Geoffrey Stahl, Rachel Bentley and Steven Calamusa of Gordon & Partners PA and Joshua Zipper of Shapiro Blasi Wasserman Hermann PA. The Yamaha e-bike class action lawsuit is Ellert, et al. v. Yamaha Motor Corporation U.S.A. Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-01588, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. [GN] YOUNG MEN'S: Faces Milton Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ RENEE MILTON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF THE EAST BAY; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CV152401 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., October 31, 2025) alleges that Defendants engaged in a pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, all of which contribute to Defendants' deliberate unfair competition. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have increased their profits by violating state wage and hour laws by, among other things: (a) failing to pay split shift premiums; (b) failing to provide meal periods or pay meal period premiums; (c) failing to authorize or permit rest periods or pay rest period premiums; (d) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (e) failing to pay all wages due during employment and upon separation of employment. The Plaintiff is a California resident and was employed by Defendants in Pleasant Hill, California as a non-exempt teacher's aide from approximately August 2025 to approximately September 2025. Young Men's Christian Association of the East Bay is an American nonprofit organization.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fawn F. Bekam, Esq. Jacquelyn Silva, Esq. Desiree Ruiz Alfaro, Esq. ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP 1700 W Burbank Blvd Burbank, CA 91506 Telephone: (213) 493-6300 Facsimile: (213) 336-3704 E-mail: fawn@abramsonlabor.com jackie.silva@abramsonlabor.com desiree.ruizalfaro@abramsonlabor.com ZILLOW HOMES: Faces Class Action Over Mortgage Steering Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Reid-Simons of Real Estate News reports that Zillow is facing a class-action lawsuit that claims the company used its powerful lead generation programs to steer homebuyers toward its own mortgage business -- and rewarded agents who went along. The complaint, filed Nov. 7 in federal court in Seattle, alleges that Zillow violated federal and state consumer protection laws by creating a system of "kickbacks" and incentives for agents, linking Zillow Home Loans referrals to leads. Specifically, the lawsuit claims Zillow's actions violate the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Washington Consumer Protection Act, as well as aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty by real estate agents. A closer look at the allegations: Zillow is accused of pressuring agents in its Premier Agent and Flex programs to steer buyers to Zillow Home Loans for pre-approval. Agents who sent more clients to Zillow's mortgage arm were rewarded with extra or higher-quality leads, while those who didn't could lose access to the lucrative Flex program, the filing claims. Buyers, meanwhile, were allegedly steered toward Zillow Home Loans without realizing their agent's business depended on it. The complaint states that "Zillow's system harms consumers, who are robbed of the disinterested advice of their fiduciary real estate agent, and instead are unknowingly steered towards ZHL's limited and often uncompetitive mortgage products." How the 'super app' strategy ties in: The filing connects the alleged conduct to Zillow's broader growth strategy, citing its February 2025 investor materials that describe a "housing super app" designed to "capture every stage of the home-buying journey on a single platform." When the company released its Q2 earnings in August, CEO Jeremy Wacksman told Real Estate News that Zillow's growth is being fueled by bundling services and capturing more of each customer's transaction. About 27% of buyers connect with "enhanced market partner" agents referred by Zillow -- relationships that often lead to ZHL, Wacksman said. He added that the company plans to raise that share to 35% by the end of 2025 and eventually 75% as it builds out its "super app" experience. Real Estate News has reached out to Zillow and will update this story with their response. Who's behind the lawsuit: Plaintiff Araba Armstrong, a first-time buyer from Anchorage, Alaska, says she was connected with an agent through Zillow's platform and, "at that agent's direction, obtained mortgage pre-approval and subsequently a mortgage loan from Zillow Home Loans." The complaint adds that she "was not informed of Zillow's quotas, incentives, or requirements linking the agent's access to Zillow leads to referrals or pre-approvals with ZHL." The case was filed by Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC, a Seattle-based class-action firm, and DiCello Levitt LLP, a consumer-focused firm with offices in Chicago and New York. They are seeking class certification on behalf of "all persons in the United States who were referred to Zillow Home Loans by a Participating Agent, and obtained a mortgage loan from Zillow Home Loans in connection with the purchase of residential property." It's not the first time Zillow has been accused of RESPA violations. In 2023, the company settled a class-action suit related to its mortgage co-marketing program, which predated Zillow Home Loans and was allegedly under investigation by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Zillow maintained it did nothing wrong, and the CFPB concluded its investigation without pursuing enforcement action. Echoes of another recent class action: Hagens Berman and Cohen Milstein, the same law firms behind the landmark commission lawsuits against major brokerages and the National Association of Realtors, called out Zillow's Flex program in a suit filed in September -- but for different reasons. That case accuses Zillow of inflating homebuying costs through Flex, which charges partner agents up to 40% of their commission and allegedly keeps overall commissions "high and inflexible." Zillow disputes the allegations, saying the complaint "fundamentally misrepresents how Zillow operates" and pledging to "vigorously defend" its business practices. [GN] ZOOM VIDEO: Court Rejects Lead Counsel's 18.75% Recovery Award -------------------------------------------------------------- Kristin J. Angelino, J.D., writing for VitalLaw, reports that alodestar cross-check performed by the court showed that the percentage sought by counsel would result in an "eye-watering" average hourly rate of $7,973.52. The district court rejected the 18.75% percentage-of-recovery award that was sought by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, as lead counsel for the settlement class in the class action against Zoom Video Communications, Inc. and its CEO Eric Yuan. Instead, using the lodestar method of fee calculation, and applying a 4.0 multiplier, the district court awarded Robbins Geller fees of $10,491,066. It also awarded costs of $262,670.49. Additionally, the court denied without prejudice the request to award $48,750 to lead plaintiff Adam Y. Ali. (In re Zoom Securities Litigation, No. 20-cv-02353 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2025)). The original class action complaint in this case was filed in April 2020, alleging Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims against Zoom and its CEO and CFO. In February 2022, the court dismissed the securities fraud claims for 14 of the alleged 15 misstatements by defendants and dismissed the claim against the company's CFO Kelly Steckelberg. In July 2025, following the court's preliminary approval of a class-wide settlement, Robbins Geller filed a request for attorney's fees and costs, which was unopposed. Comparison to Purple Mountain. In order to determine the amount of attorney's fees to award in the Zoom case, the court compared it to another securities class action before this court in which Robbins Geller was class counsel, Purple Mountain Trust v. Wells Fargo & Co., Case No. 3:18-cv-03948-JD. Robbins Geller billed 3,527.30 hours on the Zoom case. These hours did not include any significant time on many tasks typical in a securities class action such as expert witness issues, class certification and summary judgment proceedings. In contrast, the Purple Mountain award was based on over 43,350 attorney hours, which included motions to dismiss, to certify a class, to exclude expert witnesses and for summary judgment, as well as 26 witness depositions and the review of approximately 3.7 million pages of discovery. The court therefore concluded that the $75 million award in the Purple Mountain case was the equivalent of a "reasonable" multiplier of 2.5 of the lodestar in the case. On the other hand, Robbins Geller's lodestar in the Zoom case is $2,604,766.50. Therefore, the proposed fees award of 18.75% of the $150 million settlement fund would be $28,125,000 and represents a multiplier of just over 10 on counsel's lodestar. Robbins Geller argued that the 18.75% rate is an exceptional value for the class and falls "well below the Ninth Circuit's 25% benchmark" rate. The court stated, however, that Robbins Geller is "in effect" requesting fees that "would confer a massively greater reward proportionate to its work compared to the substantially larger and more complicated engagement in Purple Mountain," and this is problematic for several reasons. First, the 18.75% rate is problematic because the 25% benchmark is a starting point and not presumptively suitable in every case, especially in a "megafund" case like Zoom, where the settlement fund exceeds $100 million. This is also problematic because a lodestar cross-check shows that an 18.75% award would "gift a bonanza" to Robbins Geller and would be "grossly unreasonable" given that the lodestar indicates an hourly rate of $738.45 compared to an hourly rate of $7,973.52 under the 18.75% award. Also, this multiplier of 10 is four times the 2.5 multiplier in Purple Mountain--which was a much more involved case--and multipliers typically range from one to four. Other factors in percentage-of-recovery fees awards. The court stated that other discretionary factors used to evaluate a percentage-of-recovery fees award "do not tilt in favor of" Robbins Geller's 18.75% allocation. These factors include: (1) the extent to which class counsel achieved exceptional results for the class; (2) whether the case was risky for class counsel; (3) whether counsel's performance generated benefits beyond the cash settlement fund; (4) the market rate for the particular field of law; (5) the burdens class counsel experienced while litigating the case; and (6) whether the case was handled on a contingency basis. The court found that, although that the settlement amount was a "solid achievement," nothing in the record indicates that it can be characterized as "exceptional." Additionally, nothing in the record shows that counsel faced greater risks than those normally present in every litigation. Also, there is no evidence that the case involved a novel or untested legal theory, unusual evidentiary complications, or any other challenges outside the norm. The benefit conferred on the class was entirely monetary, and the burdens Robbins Geller faced prior to settlement were comparatively light for a securities class action. Finally, the case was handled on a contingency basis, typical for securities class actions, and the financial outlay required was fairly modest given the promptness of reaching a settlement and the "scant work in the way of motion practice, expert reports, depositions, and the like." Determining the fees. The court noted that although the PSLRA states that awarded attorneys' fees "shall not exceed a reasonable percentage" of the amount actually paid to the class, the court still has discretion to choose between the lodestar and percentage method in calculating fees. Since the court held that the 18.75% award "will not do in this case," it used the lodestar method to apply a "very generous" multiplier of 4.0, for a total fees award of $10,491,066. This equates to an hourly rate of $2,954 for each Robbins Geller biller, including summer associates and document clerks. The court held that this amount "amply rewards the efficiencies realized by the settlement without conferring a windfall." The court also awarded costs of $262,670.49. Seventy-five percent of the fees and all of the costs can be paid immediately. The remaining 25% of fees must remain in the settlement fund, pending the filing of a post-distribution accounting. Compensation of lead plaintiff. The court denied, without prejudice, the request of lead plaintiff Adam Y. Ali for an award of $48,750 for "75 hours of time expended representing the class." The court held that Ali's declaration failed to establish that the requested award is tied to specific costs and expenses incurred, or wages lost, in representing the class. It also failed to establish that Ali's time should be compensated at a $650 hourly rate. Finally, the requested award is substantially larger than similar requests by lead plaintiffs in other securities cases, and the declaration provided little explanation to justify such a large award. The case is No. 20-cv-02353. Judge: Donato, J. Attorneys: Jennifer Pafiti (Pomerantz LLP) for Michael Drieu. Patrick Edward Gibbs (Cooley LLP) for Zoom Video Communications, Inc. Companies: Zoom Video Communications, Inc. LitigationEnforcement: FraudManipulation CaliforniaNews [GN] [] Federal Court Greenlights "Pay-to-Pay" Fees Class Suit in W.Va. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Heather Olinger, writing for WVVA, reports that a federal court has given the green light to a statewide lawsuit against a credit union. The lawsuit is all about those sneaky "pay-to-pay" fees. "Pay-to-pay" fees are those extra charges, sometimes called "convenience fees," that pop up when you pay a bill online or over the phone or online. The law firm Sheppard Mullin announced that this decision, made on November 3rd, means that West Virginia residents who borrowed money can now move forward with their argument. They claim a $5 fee they were charged for making monthly payments by phone or online was illegal. The person who brought the lawsuit alleges these fees broke West Virginia's consumer protection laws because they weren't mentioned in loan agreements or allowed by state law. The court looked at evidence showing more than 1,400 of these fees were charged across 422 different consumer loans in West Virginia. Since the fees were all pretty much the same, it would be efficient to handle it as a class action and they could easily find everyone who might be part of the lawsuit by checking their records. Here's what the lawsuit is specifically claiming, and remember, these are just allegations at this point: -- Unauthorized Service Fees: These fees weren't allowed by their contracts or by law, making them an unfair way to collect debt. -- Misrepresenting Amounts Owed: By adding these processing charges, the credit union allegedly made it seem like people owed more than they actually did, since these fees weren't in the original loan agreements (Promissory Notes). -- Improper Collection Charges: The "pay-to-pay" fees were supposedly used by the credit union to cover their own costs and even make a profit, going beyond what was allowed in the contracts for interest and other charges. What does this mean for banks and credit unions? Well, this case highlights a growing trend in lawsuits aimed at protecting consumers. This is especially true since May 2025, when the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau stepped back from its stance that "pay-to-pay" fees might be unfair. So, even though federal regulators might be easing up, the chances of private lawsuits under state consumer protection laws have actually gone up. Because of this, financial institutions need to check their payment-processing fees to make sure every single charge is clearly allowed by state law. [GN] [] Nashville Garages Face Class Suit Over Illegal Fees, Charges --------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Finley of InvestigateTV reports that on Nov. 15, 2024, Jared Hill and his wife were eager to get to their dinner reservation in the Gulch and paid to park for two hours at the Premium garage at 1000 Division Street. Like parking lots around the city, the garage uses cameras to identify license plates to track how long a vehicle remains parked. After dinner, they ran into a friend and ended up talking, returning to their car and driving away. Days later, he received a parking invoice in the mail, reading that because he parked in the garage for eight minutes and two seconds over the allotted time he'd paid for, the fines and fees he incurred could be $100 if he paid after a certain date. If he paid before that date, those eight minutes and two seconds would only cost him $75. "Shocked. $25 parking fee? $50 invoice fee, not really sure what that is. And then the $25-dollar late fee if you didn't pay it in a short amount of time," Hill told our investigators. Hill is the latest frustrated driver to voice complaints about parking lots and garages in Nashville that use cameras to identify people's license plates. Four class action lawsuits have been filed in recent years against owners of garages & parking lots in Nashville that utilize cameras to track license plates.[GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***