251118.mbx

251118.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, November 18, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 230 Headlines A-MARK PRECIOUS: Faces Gonzalez Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. ADOPTIONS FROM THE HEART: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 27, 2026 ADT LLC: Bowman Sues Over Willful Labor Law Violations AEGIS FIDUCIARY: Bid to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal OK'd AFFINITY HOSPITAL: Orton Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ALKERMES INC: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in Mass. AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Brown Due Dec. 19 AMAZON.COM INC: Daubert Reply Extended to Jan. 5, 2026 AMERICAN HONDA: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Tossed AMERISAVE MORTGAGE: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ANGARA INC: Bordeaux Sues Over Deceptive Jewelry Discount Practices ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Reynaga Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ARCHERY TRADE: May Suit Transferred to D. Colorado ARCHERY TRADE: Reznich Suit Transferred to D. Colorado ARLOZOROV9 INC: Warner Suit Removed to C.D. California AURORA WORLD: Evans Sues Over Blind Users' Equal Access to Website AUTOZONE INC: Shapllo Bid for Class Cert. Tossed as Moot AVANTOR INC: Building Trades Sues Over Exchange Act Violation BLACK RIFLE: Bakker Sues Over Mislabeled Coffee Products BLACKLINE SYSTEMS: Katrdzhyan Suit Removed to C.D. California BON APPETIT MANAGEMENT: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BOWTECH LLC: Carollo Suit Transferred to D. Colorado C.A.A.I.R: Copeland Allowed to Seal Exhibits CAPITOL HELICOPTERS: Geiman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CARMAX INC: Faces Cap Suit Over Drop in Share Price CATHAY BANK: Removes Lee Suit From Wash. Super. to W.D. Wash. CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Faces Class Actions over Power Outages CEREBRAS SYSTEMS: James Sues Over Direct Copyright Infringement CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Alvarado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CHICO ELECTRIC: Reed Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages CLEANING IT: Sergio Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Drivers COALESCE LLC: Michler Balks at Failure to Protect Personal Info COHEN FASHION OPTICAL: Augenblick Files Suit in E.D. New York COLUMBIA DEBT RECOVERY: Robertson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida COLUMBUS CAR: All Discovery in Thrower Due June 28, 2026 CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Fray Alleges CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Meschke Says CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Protect Private Information, Knick Says CONDUENT INC: Medrano Sues Over Inadequate Data Security Measures CONSOLIDATED MAINTENANCE: Doctolero Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CONTEXTLOGIC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit COVENANT TRANSPORT: Seeks Denial of Class Cert Bid CRACKER BARREL: Fritsch Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee CUSTOM BUILDING: Cazares Suit Removed to C.D. California DISFRUTING TWO: Underpays Restaurant Employees, Lopez Says DONALD TRUMP: Class Cert Hearing Set for Nov. 17 DOW JONES: Dawkins Sues Over Unlawful Interception ELITE MEDICAL: Maynor Sues Over Unlawful Wage Deductions ENPHASE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Hayes Securities Class Suit EREDI PISANO: Faces Valencia Suit Over Website's Access Barriers ESSOR GROUP INC: Garcia Sues Over Unlawful Charges EVENFLO COMPANY: Toney Sues Over Defective and Unsafe Car Seats EWINDOWCOVERINGS LLC: Blind Can't Access Website, Hampton Alleges EXIT 9 BROOKLYN: Jones Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers EXPEDIA GROUP: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response FDS ALUMINUM: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Mendez Says FEDERAL EXPRESS: Jackson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FIREFLY AEROSPACE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 12 FIRSTENERGY CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Ohio FLAG & ANTHEM: Alexandria Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store FOODPREP SOLUTIONS: Class Cert Bid Responses in Gawlik Due Nov. 18 FOOTPRINTS CAFE: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Hernandez Says FORTUNE BRANDS: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GEICO SECURE: Faces Class Suit Over Underpaid Auto Policyholders GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Burkhart" GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Fox" Suit GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Kaplan" GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend MOVEit Security Breach Suit GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend TVPX ARS Suit in Virginia GOSPEL LIGHT: Butcher-Smith Sues to Recover Compensation HAIR SHOP: Alexandria Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website HAVENLY INSIDE: Hampton Suit Seeks Blind-Inaccessible Online Store HOMELAND SECURITY: Court Orders Unsealing of Testimony Records HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Nadler Sues Over Mislabeled Air Purifiers HOYT ARCHERY INC: Montpetit Suit Transferred to D. Colorado HTNY 1: Does Not Properly Pay Restaurant Employees, Ramirez Says HURLEY INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Fake Discounts HYUNDAI MOTOR: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to April 3, 2026 INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Appeals Court Dismisses Securities Suit INTERACTIVE DATA: Illegally Lists Cellular Numbers, Gaskins Alleges INTERSTATE BACKGROUND: Dickerson Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA JACKSON NATIONAL: Deducts Inflated Insurance Charges, Suit Says JSN NETWORK: Castelli Sues Over Unlawful Wage Practices JUNESHINE INC: Pham Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California KANSAS: Englund Sues Over Unlawful Extension of Probation KAVERE SERVICES: Bigler Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. KETTLE AND FIRE: Cohen Sues Over Mislabeled Chicken Bone Broth KRISTI NOEM: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Pinchi Due Nov. 14 KROGER CO: Bid to Dismiss First Amended Class Action Tossed LEADPOINT INC: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia LEGATO MEGER: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Einride AB LIEN ENFORCEMENT: Conroy Files Suit in S.D. California LIFECORE BIOMEDICAL: Continues to Defend Minnesota Shareholder Suit LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Faces Class Suit Over Oakley Fake Discounts LX HAUSYS: Filing for Settlement Joint Report Due August 8, 2026 MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 1, 2026 MEDICAL ANSWERING: Faces Paliy Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. MEMPHIS, TN: Kiner Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action NEOGENOMICS INC: Continues to Defend Goldenberg Class Suit in NY NEW DESSERTS LLC: Gomez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. NEWELL BRANDS: Martin Sues Over Unlawful Safety Defect NEWMONT CORP Faces Securities Suit over SEC Disclosures NEXSTAR MEDIA: April 2026 Trial for Local TV Ad Antitrust MDL NEXT BRIDGE: Discovery in Helo Securities Suit Ongoing NJ LENDERS: Faces Garcia Suit Over Compromised Clients' Info NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bruce Alleges NOVAVAX INC: Maryland Court Closes "Sinnathurai" Suit NRG ENERGY: "Mirkin" Remains Pending NRG ENERGY: TCPA Suits Await Class Certification Ruling ONLINE INFORMATION SERVICES: Booth Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky PACIFIC SEAFOOD: Fernandez Sues Over Failure to Sensitive Data PEOPLE CONCERN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Njoku Suit Says PETER PAN BUS LINES: Herrera Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. PG&E CORP: Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit PHILADELPHIA, PA: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 27, 2026 PHILADELPHIA: Court Denies Police Officers' Class Certification Bid PILOT TRAVEL: Pimentel Sues Over Unsolicited Calls PRIMO BRANDS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Defrauding Investors S&H PROPERTY: McCauley Sues Over Failure to Remove Barriers SAFECO INSURANCE: Dec. 25 Class Certification Hearing Vacated SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Court Certifies Class of Arrested Persons SANAL INVESTMENTS: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property SANDOZ INC: Loses Summary Judgment Bid vs Connecticut SAPP BROS: Andersen Sues Over Failure to Secure PII SEABOARD CORP: Continues to Defend Price Fixing Antitrust Suits SECURITAS SECURITY: Class Cert Filing in Greco Due July 17, 2026 SELECT REHABILITATION: $2.5MM Settlement in McLaughlin Gets OK SERVICEQUIK INC: Connor Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid SMURFIT KAPPA: Melendez Suit Removed to C.D. California SOCAL4 LLC: Meza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SPRUCE POWER HOLDING: Caplan Sues Over Unfair Business Practice ST MICHAEL GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cayo Alleges STARBUCKS CORPORATION: General Pretrial Management Order Entered STELLA'S PIZZA: Norris Sues Over Discriminative Property STORY COMPANIES: Cooley Sues Over Unpaid Compensation STRIDE INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit SUGAR GRITS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Aldana Alleges SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: Oster Ovens "Defective," Jones Suit Alleges SUSI VILLA TPLAYGROUND: Norris Sues Over Discriminative Property SWEEPSTEAKS LIMITED: Gardner Sues Over Sues Over Illegal Gambling SYNOPSYS INC: Kim Sues Over False and Misleading Statements TF GROUP LLC: Dennery Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California TOYOTA ARENA: Phoenix Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid TOYOTA ARENA: Phoenix Seeks to Advance Hearing Date on Class Cert TYSON FOODS: Lucien Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website UNITED PARKS: Faces Class Suit Over "Bait-and-Switch" Tactics UNITED STATES: Bostock Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 9th Cir. UNITED STATES: Chen Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 2nd Circuit US BANK TRUST: Pridgen Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida USAA CASUALTY: Must Oppose Jennings Class Cert Bid by Dec. 8 VISTA HM: Scroggins Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages VLNYC LLC: Norris Sues Over Discriminative Property VONS CO: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Jan. 14, 2026 WAL-MART STORES: Certifies Gender Discrimination Class Action Suit WASATCH MEN'S: Faces Suit Over Closure of Clinic Without Warning WESTGATE RESORTS: Moore Seeks OK of Renewed Class Certification Bid WESTJET AIRLINES: Yee Files Suit in S.D. California WESTROCK LONGVIEW: Wooten Suit Removed to C.D. California WHEELINGS BAR: O'Donnell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website WHITTAKER FORD: Lagrand Files TCPA Suit in W.D. New York WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Fair Lending Suit [] CEO J.J. Thomas Assumes Class Action Capital's Chair of Board ********* A-MARK PRECIOUS: Faces Gonzalez Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. ----------------------------------------------------------------- NOEMA GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A-MARK PRECIOUS METALS, INC. and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV31774 (Cal. Super., October 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay all wages owed twice per month, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay wages due upon termination, failure to permit compliant meal periods, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to reimburse for required business expenses, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a stock accountant from approximately November 12, 2018, until July 28, 2025. A-Mark 1 Precious Metals, Inc. is a company that distributes and purchases precious metal products based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nazo Koulloukian, Esq. KOUL LAW FIRM, APC 217 South Kenwood Street Glendale, CA 91205 Telephone: (213) 325-3032 Facsimile: (818) 561-3938 Email: nazo@koullaw.com ADOPTIONS FROM THE HEART: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 27, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIK LASALLE on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ADOPTIONS FROM THE HEART, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00974-GAM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Gerald Austin McHugh entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. All factual discovery shall be completed by March 27, 2026. 2. Expert reports for the Plaintiff, if any, and motion for class certification, shall be due by April 27, 2026. 3. Expert reports for the Defendant, if any, and opposition to motion for class certification, including challenges to experts, shall be due by June 11, 2026. 4. The Plaintiff's reply to the Defendant's opposition to the motion for class certification, including challenges to experts, shall be due by July 13, 2026. 5. The Defendant's sur reply to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be due by Aug. 13, 2026. 6. A further case management order will issue after resolution of class certification. The Defendant offers adoption services in six states. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Zoz1Hl at no extra charge.[CC] ADT LLC: Bowman Sues Over Willful Labor Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------ Jacquette Bowman, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ADT, LLC, a limited liability company, Case No. 9:25-cv-81351-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 30, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and common law. The Defendant violated the FLSA and common law by systematically failing to compensate its HEs for work tasks completed before and after their scheduled shifts, when they were not logged into Defendant's timekeeping system. This timekeeping procedure resulted in HEs not being paid for all overtime hours worked and in workweeks in which HEs worked overtime, for straight time. More specifically, Defendant failed to compensate HEs for the substantial time they spent turning on, booting up, and updating their computer and computer systems prior to clocking into Defendant's timekeeping system and completing call documentation, checking and responding to emails, and shutting down their programs/applications that they used during their scheduled shift after clocking out. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that her rights, and the rights of the putative Collective and Class members, were violated, a judgment awarding her unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs to make them whole for damages they suffered, and any other remedies to which they may be entitled, and to help ensure Defendant will not subject future workers to the same illegal conduct in the future, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a remote non-exempt Account Manager (Retention) in Kansas from March 6, 2023 through September 25, 2025. The Defendant is in the home and business security business and holds itself out as employing "more than 13,000 professionals in over 150 locations throughout the U.S. to ensure that it's over 6 million customers stay as safe and secure as possible."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Maranges, Esq. MARANGES, PLLC 2255 Glades Road, Suite 324A Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: 561-210-9151 Facsimile: 561-330-5764 Email: Chris@MarangesLaw.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Alana A. Karbal, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: 248-355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com akarbal@sommerspc.com AEGIS FIDUCIARY: Bid to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Hon. Judge Schmehl entered an order granting the Seller Defendants' Unopposed Motion to File under Seal. The Clerk shall seal an unredacted version of the Seller Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and Exhibit E. Aegis specializes in providing fiduciary services to clients. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B19ruB at no extra charge.[CC] AFFINITY HOSPITAL: Orton Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Ron Orton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Affinity Hospital, LLC doing business as: Grandview Medical Center, Trinity Emergency Physicians, LLC, Case No. 01-cv-25-904085 was removed from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on Oct. 30, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01884-JHE to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract. Affinity Hospital LLC doing business as Grandview Medical Center -- https://www.grandviewhealth.com/ -- is a 434-bed tertiary care hospital that provides healthcare services to patients in Birmingham and surrounding communities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Austin Brock Whitten, Esq. Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Ste. 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 322-8880 Fax: (205) 328-2711 Email: austinw@pittmandutton.com jonm@pittmandutton.com The Defendant is represented by: E. Clark Summerford, Esq. HUST, SUMMERFORD & WILLIAMSON, LLC P.O. Box 1310 Tuscaloosa, AL 35403 Phone: (205) 349-1383 Fax: (205) 391-1319 Email: cs@zeanahhust.com ALKERMES INC: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in Mass. --------------------------------------------------------------- Alkermes Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from an antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On October 2, 2025, Value Drug Company filed a complaint asserting antitrust claims against Alkermes, Inc. and APIL in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of direct purchasers of VIVITROL and alleges that the Company's U.S. Patent No. 7,919,499 related to VIVITROL was fraudulently obtained, improperly listed in the Orange Book, and wrongfully enforced, resulting in delayed market entry for generic forms of VIVITROL. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified money damages plus interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Alkermes Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On October 2, 2025, Value Drug Company filed a complaint asserting antitrust claims against Alkermes, Inc. and APIL in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of direct purchasers of VIVITROL and alleges that the Company's U.S. Patent No. 7,919,499 related to VIVITROL was fraudulently obtained, improperly listed in the Orange Book, and wrongfully enforced, resulting in delayed market entry for generic forms of VIVITROL. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified money damages plus interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Alkermes, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, with its principal place of business in Waltham, Massachusetts. AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Brown 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 Hon. Judge Chun entered an order regarding class certification briefing schedule as follows: 1. The deadline for the 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 Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QQRILv 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 AMAZON.COM INC: Daubert Reply Extended to Jan. 5, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for Amazon's Daubert reply in connection with the Plaintiffs' class certification motion: Filing Current Proposed Amazon's reply in support of Dec. 15, 2025 Jan. 5, 2026 Amazon's Daubert motion: IT IS SO STIPULATED THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD. Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yTKxKa 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. Elle Mahdavi, 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 ellemahdavi@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 AMERICAN HONDA: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Tossed ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ELIAS MORALES AGUIRRE, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CORPORATION, INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-06909-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr. entered an order denying the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and its motion for a stay. The Defendant claims that its ongoing discussions with CARB may give Defendant a safe harbor defense, and the Court should await this further factual development. The Defendant's argument is almost entirely based on a single quote from CARB PMQ Thomas Montes in a February 27, 2025 deposition, where he stated that "[CARB] will have future meetings with Honda to continue" discussions about "Honda's interpretation of the California Emissions Warranty." The Court also declines to impose a stay. Defendant argues that granting a six month stay “would ensure economy of time and effort for this Court [and the parties] because [Defendant] and CARB’s ongoing discussions regarding the coverage of head gaskets under the California Emissions Warranty may result in a narrowed scope for this litigation.” In 2022, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint alleging that the Defendant unlawfully denied coverage for the head gaskets in class members' vehicles under their extended 15-year/150,000 mile warranty in violation of the California Emissions Warranty. American is the North American subsidiary of Japanese Honda Motor Company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w744Ma at no extra charge.[CC] AMERISAVE MORTGAGE: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amerisave Mortgage Corporation. The case is styled as Erin Wilson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Amerisave Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-06218-ELR (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. AmeriSave -- https://www.amerisave.com/ -- is one of the nation's leading and fastest-growing retail mortgage companies, serving customers in 49 states and DC.[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 ANGARA INC: Bordeaux Sues Over Deceptive Jewelry Discount Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- AYREANNE BORDEAUX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANGARA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-02848 (C.D. Cal., October 27, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business practices. According to the complaint, the Defendant's products are primarily sold online through its website, www.angara.com. On its website, the Defendant lists purported regular prices and advertises purported "LIMITED TIME" discounts from those listed regular prices. These include sitewide discounts of at least 10% off "SITEWIDE" using a coupon code that is "auto-applied at checkout." In addition, the Defendant advertises its sitewide discounts by emailing individuals on its email list, with discount offers similar to those on the website. Far from being time-limited, however, discounts on Defendant's Products are almost always available, asserts the complaint. As a result, the list prices Defendant advertises are not actually Defendant's regular prices, because Defendant's Products are regularly available for less than that. The purported discounts Defendant advertises are not the true discounts the customer is receiving. Nor are the purported discounts "LIMITED TIME"-quite the opposite, they are nearly always available. The complaint relates that Ms. Bordeaux bought supposedly discounted jewelry from Angara's website and was misled by Angara's deceptive sales. She brings this case for herself and similar consumers nationwide who purchased discounted Angara Products. Plaintiff AyreAnne Bordeaux is domiciled in Sugarloaf, CA. The proposed class includes citizens of every state. Defendant Angara, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that sells and markets jewelry products and accessories online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonas Jacobson, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Vivek Kothari, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: +1 (310) 656-7069 E-mail: jonas@dovel.com simon@dovel.com vivek@dovel.com ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Reynaga Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC. The case is styled as Humberto Reynaga, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC, Case No. 25STCV31896 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 30, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC -- https://www.anheuser-busch.com/ -- is an American brewing company headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karen I. Gold, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 310-439-5208 Email: kgold@blackstonepc.com ARCHERY TRADE: May Suit Transferred to D. Colorado -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Michelle May, and all others similarly situated v. Archery Trade Association, Inc., BowTech, Inc. BPS Direct LLC doing business as: 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., Precision Shooting Equipment, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-03651 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-03454-PAB-TPO to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. The Archery Trade Association (ATA) -- https://archerytrade.org/ -- is the trade group representing manufacturers, retailers, distributors, sales representatives and others working in the archery and bowhunting industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ellen G. Jalkut, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 1325 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2601 New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 980-7422 - and - Stacey P. Slaughter, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue LaSalle Plaza, Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015 Phone: (612) 349-8500 Email: sslaughter@robinskaplan.com ARCHERY TRADE: Reznich Suit Transferred to D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Timothy Reznich, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Archery Trade Association, Inc., BowTech, Inc. BPS Direct LLC doing business as: 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., Precision Shooting Equipment, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-03480 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-03450-PAB-TPO to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. The Archery Trade Association (ATA) -- https://archerytrade.org/ -- is the trade group representing manufacturers, retailers, distributors, sales representatives and others working in the archery and bowhunting industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Landau, Esq. TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP 123 William Street, Suite 1900a New York, NY 10038 Phone: (646) 873-7654 - and - Lee Owen, Esq. TESKE LAW PPLC 80 South Eighth St, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 767-0523 - and - Vildan A. Teske, Esq. TESKE LAW PLLC 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 767-0521 The Defendant is represented by: Erik Thomas Koons, Esq. BAKER BOTTS LLP 700 K Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 639-7973 Email: erik.koons@bakerbotts.com - and - Miriam Solomon, Esq. Nicole M. Moen, Esq. Todd A. Wind, Esq. FREDRIKSON & BYRON 60 South Sixth Street, Ste 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 492-7055 ARLOZOROV9 INC: Warner Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Sheree Warner, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. ARLOZOROV9, INC. D/B/A ALMA, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01512640-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Oct. 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-02444. On September 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint against Defendant which sets forth the following nine causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum Wage for All Hours Worked; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; Violation of Unfair Competition Law; Private Attorneys General Act (the "Complaint").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Eric J. Gitig, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Fax: (213) 689-0430 Email: Eric.Gitig@jacksonlewis.com - and - Noor Y. Kurdi, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 885-5256 Fax: (949) 885-1380 Email: Noor.Kurdi@jacksonlewis.com AURORA WORLD: Evans Sues Over Blind Users' Equal Access to Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AURORA WORLD, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13295 (N.D. Ill., October 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://auroragift.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, 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 and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Aurora World, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (716) 281-5496 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law AUTOZONE INC: Shapllo Bid for Class Cert. Tossed as Moot -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAPLLO v. SHAPLLO v. AUTOZONE, INC., Case No. 9:25-cv-80770 (S.D. Fla., Filed June 18, 2025), the Hon. Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks entered an order denying as moot Motion for Class Certification, in light of the filing of an Amended Motion for Class Certification. The nature of suit states Statutory Actions. AutoZone is a retailer of automotive replacement parts and accessories.[CC] AVANTOR INC: Building Trades Sues Over Exchange Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- Building Trades Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AVANTOR, INC., MICHAEL STUBBLEFIELD, and R. BRENT JONES, Case No. 2:25-cv-06187 (E.D. Pa., Oct. 30, 2025), is brought is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Avantor common stock between March 5, 2024, and October 28, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. The 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. This Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, about the Company's business and operations. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: Avantor's competitive positioning was weaker than Defendants had publicly represented; Avantor was experiencing negative effects from increased competition; and as a result, Defendants' representations about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the significant decline in the market value of the Company's common stock pursuant to the revelation of the fraud, Plaintiff and other members of the Class have suffered significant damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Avantor common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Avantor provides scientific products and services for customers in biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, healthcare, education, government, and other industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Naumon A. Amjed, Esq. Ryan T. Degnan, Esq. Karissa J. Sauder, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 Email: namjed@ktmc.com rdegnan@ktmc.com ksauder@ktmc.com BLACK RIFLE: Bakker Sues Over Mislabeled Coffee Products -------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN BAKKER; and NOAH LUNDGREN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BLACK RIFLE COFFEE COMPANY LLC; and BRC INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-at-01505 (E.D. Cal., Nov. 3, 2025) alleges violation of the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California's False Advertising Law, and California's Unfair Competition Law. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants market their coffee as "America's Coffee", boldly including the slogan along the top of their coffee bags. Defendants' coffee bag labels unqualified "Made in USA" advertisements. But none of the coffee that Defendants sell is grown or produced in the United States. By labeling their coffee as "America's Coffee" and prominently displaying the American flag on the front of the bags, the Defendants are misleading and deceiving consumers in California and New York into believing that Defendants sell American coffee when in fact they do not. The Defendants are able to charge a premium and increase demand for their coffee in part because of their Made in USA advertising, says the suit. Black Rifle Coffee Company LLC operates as a coffee company. The Company offers roast coffee products, as well as apparel, cups, mug, tumblers, and gift items. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Ellersick, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 Facsimile: (877) 500-8781 Email: ryan.ellersick@zimmreed.com - and - Zain A. Shirazi, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 Email: zain.shirazi@zimmreed.com BLACKLINE SYSTEMS: Katrdzhyan Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Anthony Katrdzhyan, individually, and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. BLACKLINE SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25VECV04528 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Oct. 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10415. While Defendant contends that the allegations in Plaintiff's complaint lack merit, Plaintiff alleges the following two causes of action against Defendant: unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and unpaid minimum wages in violation of the FLSA.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Kevin D. Sullivan, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310.282.2500 Fax: 310.282.2501 Email: kdsullivan@thompsoncoburn.com BON APPETIT MANAGEMENT: Garcia Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bon Appetit Management Co., et al. The case is styled as Nicky Garcia, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Bon Appetit Management Co., Compass Group USA, Case No. 25STCV31854 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 30, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Bon Appetit Management Company -- https://www.bamco.com/ -- is a Palo Alto, California-based on-site restaurant company, that provides cafe and catering services to corporations, colleges, and universities.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq. William Tran, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd. Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 962-6465 Fax: (818) 962-6469 Email: alindsay@d.law w.tran@d.law BOWTECH LLC: Carollo Suit Transferred to D. Colorado ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Anthony Carollo, and all others similarly situated v. Bowtech, LLC, Hoyt Archery, Inc., Mathews Archery, Inc., Precision Shooting Equipment, Inc, BPS Direct LLC doing business as: Bass Pro Shops, Cabela's LLC, Dicks Sporting Goods, Inc., Jays Sporting Goods, Inc. doing business as: Jays Sporting Goods, Inc., Kinseys Outdoors, Inc., Lancaster Archery Supply, Inc., Archery Trade Association, Inc., NeuIntel LLC doing business as: PriceSpider formerly known as: Oris Intelligence, Trackstreet, Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-00631 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, 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-03442-PAB-TPO to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Bowtech Archery -- https://bowtecharchery.com/ -- offers premium archery equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicolas Vincent Cirese, Esq. SCHMITT TEMPLIN, LLC 2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 380 Kansas City, MO 64108 Phone: (816) 799-3558 C.A.A.I.R: Copeland Allowed to Seal Exhibits -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Copeland, et al v. C.A.A.I.R., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-00564 (N.D. Okla., Filed Oct. 10, 2017), the Hon. Judge Sara E. Hill entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Seal Exhibits . The plaintiffs are granted leave to file certain exhibits to their motion for Rule 23 class certification under seal. The Court construes the following statement contained in Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Seal Exhibits as a statement of non-objection to filing certain exhibits to Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 class certification under seal: "Plaintiffs' counsel did confer with Defendants' counsel on Oct. 28, 2025. The Defendants stand by their designations and intend to take 30 days to further designate deposition transcripts under the Protective Order." The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). CAAIR is a travel & event management company.[CC] CAPITOL HELICOPTERS: Geiman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capitol Helicopters, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jonathan Geiman, on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. Capitol Helicopters, Inc., Does 1 to 10, Case No. 25CV025226 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 20, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Capitol Helicopters -- https://capitolhelicopters.com/ -- a certified Air Carrier under Parts 135, 137, and 133, provides an extensive range of helicopter services across Northern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen Victor Feghali, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S Figueroa St., Ste. 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5404 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: afeghali@moonlawgroup.com CARMAX INC: Faces Cap Suit Over Drop in Share Price --------------------------------------------------- JASON CAP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARMAX, INC.; WILLIAM D. NASH; and ENRIQUE N. MAYOR-MORA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03602-JKB (D. Md., Nov. 3, 2025) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded CarMax securities between June 20, 2025 and September 24, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendant's violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the press releases made by the Defendants were materially false and misleading because the Defendants recklessly overstated CarMax's prospects. In reality, the Defendants were in no position to assure that there would be positive results for "years to come." In fact, as Defendants knew or should have known, CarMax's Q1 results were positive because of consumer speculation about tariffs, which motivated many to buy cars, and not a sign that CarMax's business was positioned to deliver "significant year-over-year earnings growth for years to come." CarMax's stock price fell $11.5 per share, or 20.07%, to close at $45.60 per share on September 25, 2025. The next day it fell a further 1.62%, to close at $44.86. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. CarMax, Inc. retails automobiles. The Company offers used cars, vans, electric vehicles, and light trucks, as well as provides rental, maintenance, post warranty repairs, mechanical and painting work, diagnosis insurance, valuation, and security services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: philkim@rosenlegal.com CATHAY BANK: Removes Lee Suit From Wash. Super. to W.D. Wash. ------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of OI LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CATHAY BANK; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Kings (Case No. 25-2-29029-8) to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Nov. 3, 2025. The clerk of court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02186. The case is assigned to Kymberly K. Evanson. Cathay Bank provides personal and commercial banking and financial services. The Bank accepts deposits, makes loans, checking accounts, and issues credit and debit cards, as well as home equity financing and foreign exchange services. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Nicole E. Demmon, Esq. Eliza Whitworth, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 695-5100 Facsimile: (206) 689-2822 Email: ndemmon@grsm.com ewhitworth@grsm.com CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Faces Class Actions over Power Outages ---------------------------------------------------------- CenterPoint Energy, 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 as of September 30, 2024, three putative class actions have been filed against CenterPoint Energy and/or Houston Electric in the District Courts of Harris County, Texas, on behalf of individuals or entities who claim losses due to power outages lasting at least 48 hours as a result of Hurricane Beryl, such actions consisting of the following proposed classes: (1) all restaurants in Harris County, Galveston County, and Montgomery County; (2) all residential customers; and (3) all health, wellness, medical and beauty facilities in Harris County. These putative classes assert claims and theories of negligence, gross negligence, nuisance, fraud, and/or violation of Houston Electric's tariff for retail delivery service, and each seeks damages in excess of $100 million for, among other things, business interruption, property damage and loss, cost of repair, loss of use and market value, lost income, nuisance, extreme mental anguish and/or punitive damages. On July 30, 2025, the plaintiffs in the putative class action on behalf of all residential customers nonsuited without prejudice all claims and causes of action. In addition, the plaintiffs in the other two putative class actions have amended their petitions to remove all class action allegations and to assert only claims of gross negligence and intentional misconduct. One of those lawsuits is brought by approximately 220 individually named plaintiffs, and the other lawsuit includes approximately 45 individually named plaintiffs. Several individual actions have also been filed in Harris County District Courts asserting claims of negligence, negligence per se, negligent undertaking and/or gross negligence against CenterPoint Energy, CenterPoint Energy Service Company, LLC and/or Houston Electric. Certain plaintiffs in these actions allege personal injury or property damage and seek damages in excess of $1 million. These cases have been or will be transferred to the designated MDL pretrial court. CenterPoint Energy is a public utility holding company with operating subsidiaries Houston Electric that owns and operates electric transmission and distribution facilities in the Texas gulf coast area that includes the city of Houston. CEREBRAS SYSTEMS: James Sues Over Direct Copyright Infringement --------------------------------------------------------------- DARIUS H. JAMES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CEREBRAS SYSTEMS INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-09361 (N.D. Cal., October 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for direct copyright infringement. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of systematically copying and storing works by independent authors. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class members own registered copyrights in certain books that were included in the pre-training dataset that Cerebras pirated and copied from the internet to train its Cerebras-GPT models. The Plaintiff and Class members never authorized Cerebras to copy, store, and use their copyrighted works as pre-training materials. Cerebras copied, and thus infringed on these copyrighted works multiple times to train its Cerebras-GPT large language models. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered harm and damages, says the suit. Cerebras Systems, Inc. is an artificial intelligence (AI) hardware company, with its principal place of business in Sunnyvale, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. David L. Gerbie, Esq. Jordan R. Frysinger, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, PC 1089 Willowcreek Road, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 Facsimile: (312) 275-7895 Email: eturin@mcgpc.com dgerbie@mcgpc.com jfrysinger@mcgpc.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Alvarado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS HOLDING COMPANY LLC, et al. The case is styled as Claudia Alvarado, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS HOLDING COMPANY LLC; CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS LLC; CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS LLC; CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS OPERATING LLC; POINTER HOWARD, Case No. 25STCV31802 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 30, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Charter Communications, Inc. -- https://corporate.charter.com/ -- is an American telecommunications and mass media company with services branded as Spectrum.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Henry G. Glitz, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd., Fl. 1 Los Angeles, CA 90024-4973 Phone: 310-438-5555 CHICO ELECTRIC: Reed Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- William Darryl Reed, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHICO ELECTRIC, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, (Cal. Super. Ct., Cutte Cty., Oct. 21, 2025), is brought to recover wages from Defendants due to Defendants' systematic failure to: pay overtime wages, pay minimum wages, provide meal and rest breaks (or pay the statutory compensation due), issue accurate wage statements, pay wages on termination of employment, provide a uniform maintenance allowance, pay reporting time pay, pay sick pay and provide personnel records. The Plaintiff, like his co-workers whom Defendants also employed during the applicable limitations period, spend their workdays as Supervising Electricians and General Foremen and other employees, under illegal and highly regimented circumstances. That regimen results from Defendants' insistence to strictly monitor and curtail labor costs, which Defendants accomplish by not paying for all labor costs, failing to pay overtime wages due, failing to pay minimum wages, failing to provide meal and rest breaks (or pay the statutory compensation due), failing to issue accurate wage statements, failing to pay wages on termination of employment, failing to provide a uniform maintenance allowance, failing to pay reporting time pay, failing to pay sick pay and by using other unlawful stratagems to ensure that labor costs remain artificially low, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs have worked as Supervising Electricians and General Foremen and other employees for Defendants in California. The Defendant has been authorized to do business and has been doing business in the County of Butte.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin A. Lipeles, Esq. Thomas H. Schelly, Esq. Jasmine J. Badawi, Esq. LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC 880 Apollo Street, Suite 336 El Segundo, CA 90245 Phone: (310) 322-2211 Fax: (310) 322-2252 Email: jasmine@kallaw.com CLEANING IT: Sergio Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Drivers ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA SIMONE FERREIRA SERGIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEANING IT NOW, LLC, and BJL CLEANING CORPORATION d/b/a CHAMPION CLEANING, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-13194 (D. Mass., October 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wages Act. Ms. Ferreira Sergio was employed by the Defendants as a driver in or around May of 2024 until February of 2025. Cleaning It Now, LLC is a cleaning services provider based in Methuen, Massachusetts. BJL Cleaning Corporation, doing business as Champion Cleaning, is a cleaning services provider based in Methuen, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ana Barros, Esq. Olayiwola O. Oduyingbo, Esq. Maria Cedeno Cassinelli, Esq. ODU LAW FIRM, LLC 888 Reservoir Avenue, Floor 2 Cranston, RI 02910 Telephone: (401) 209-2029 Facsimile: (401) 217-2299 Email: abarros@odulawfirm.com Odu@odulawfirm.com ABarros@odulawfirm.com COALESCE LLC: Michler Balks at Failure to Protect Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- AMBER MICHLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COALESCE, LLC d/b/a BENEFITELECT, Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-02024-AA (D. Ore., October 31, 2025) is a class action arising from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. On April 2, 2025, the Defendant became aware of potentially suspicious activity within certain systems in its computer network. Upon information and belief, this cybersecurity incident compromised the personally identifiable information (PII) of Defendant's current and former clients and their employees, including but not limited to their names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and financial account information, says the suit. The cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII. In short, the Defendant's failures placed the Class' PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, the suit asserts. BenefitElect is a full-service benefits administration platform offering HR software services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Jason T. Dennett, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com jdennett@tousley.com - and - Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: lloginov@shamisgentile.com COHEN FASHION OPTICAL: Augenblick Files Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cohen Fashion Optical LLC. The case is styled as Denise Augenblick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cohen Fashion Optical LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-06086 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Cohen's Fashion Optical -- https://www.cohensfashionoptical.com/ -- is an optical retailer headquartered in New York City featuring fashion products such as eyeglasses, frames and sunglasses, lenses, contact lenses, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 GARDEN CITY, NY 11530 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Fax: (212) 868-1229 Email: vmaniatis@milberg.com COLUMBIA DEBT RECOVERY: Robertson Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Columbia Debt Recovery LLC. The case is styled as Michael Robertson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated d v. Columbia Debt Recovery LLC doing business as: Genesis, Case No. 0:25-cv-62187-RS (S.D. Fla., Oct. 29, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Columbia Debt Recovery LLC doing business as Genesis -- https://www.genesiscred.com/ -- specializes in collections for the multi-family industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Garrett O. Berg, Esq. GARRETT BERG LAW, P.A. 555 NE 15th St., Ste. Ph A Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 298-2253 Email: garrett@gberglegal.com - and - Christopher Chagas Gold, Esq. GOLD LAW, PA 350 Lincoln Rd., 2nd Floor Miami Beach, FL 33139 Phone: (561) 789-4413 Email: chris@chrisgoldlaw.com COLUMBUS CAR: All Discovery in Thrower Due June 28, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GENE THROWER, v. COLUMBUS CAR AUDIO & ACCESSORIES, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00957-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers entered a preliminary pretrial order as follows: -- Any initial disclosures shall be made by Nov. 4, 2025. -- Any motion to amend the pleadings or to join additional parties shall be filed by Dec. 12, 2025. If the case is a class action, the parties agree that the motion for class certification shall be filed by July 5, 2026. -- All discovery shall be completed by June 28, 2026. -- Any dispositive motion shall be filed by Feb. 27, 2026. -- The Plaintiff shall make a settlement demand by Apr. 6, 2026. -- The Defendants shall respond by May 6, 2025. -- The parties understand that this case will be referred to an attorney mediator, or to the Magistrate Judge, for a settlement conference in June 2026. The Plaintiff has alleged that the Defendant has sent telemarketing text messages to individuals who have no relationship with the Defendant. The Plaintiff further alleged that Defendant delivered text messages to telephone number to telephone number (614) 900-XXXX in 2025, including at least on July 25, August 1, 8, and 13, 2025. Based on those allegations, the Plaintiff makes a claim for a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Due to the alleged en masse nature of the campaign, the Plaintiff is pursuing this matter on behalf of the following putative class: "All persons throughout the United States (1) who did not provide their telephone number to Columbus Car Audio & Accessories, Inc., (2) to whom Columbus Car Audio & Accessories, Inc. delivered, or caused to be delivered, more than one voice message or text message within a 12-month period, promoting Columbus Car Audio & Accessories, Inc. goods or services, (3) where the person's residential or cellular telephone number had been registered with the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days before Columbus Car Audio & Accessories, Inc. delivered, or caused to be delivered, at least two of the voice messages or text messages within the 12- month period, (4) within four years preceding the date of this complaint and through the date of class certification." Columbus is a car audio and accessory company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=imvycZ at no extra charge.[CC] CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Fray Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- ROGER FRAY; and VITO PASSALAQUA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-17137-MEF-MAH (D.N.J., Nov. 3, 2025) is a class action arising out of the Defendant's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and timely and adequately destroy Plaintiffs' and Class members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that due to the Defendant's data security failures which resulted in the Data Breach, cybercriminals were able to target Defendant's computer systems and exfiltrate Plaintiffs' and Class members' highly sensitive Private Information. As a result of this Data Breach, Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Private Information was compromised and stolen and remains in the hands of those cybercriminals. The complaint alleges that the Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect Plaintiffs' and Class members' Private Information with which it was entrusted for either treatment or employment or both. Conduent Business Services, LLC offers digital payments, claims processing, benefit administration, automated tolling, regulatory compliance, and distributed learning services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Meschke Says --------------------------------------------------------------- REED MESCHKE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-17108-MEF-MAH (D.N.J., October 31, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and private health information of Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals. On January 13, 2025, the Defendant discovered that an unauthorized party accessed certain files from Defendant's inadequately protected network. The files involved in the data breach contained private information concerning millions of individuals. Despite the breadth and sensitivity of the private information exposed, and the attendant consequences to Plaintiff and Class Members as a result of the exposure, the Defendant failed to disclose the data breach to victims until approximately 10 months after the data breach occurred, further exacerbating harm to Plaintiff and Class Members, assets the suit. The Defendant breached these duties by failing to implement adequate data security measures and protocols to properly safeguard and protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information from a foreseeable cyberattack on its systems that resulted in the unauthorized access and theft of Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information, says the suit. Conduent Business Services, LLC is a business process services provider headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey. Conduent provides a wide range of outsourcing, automation, transaction-processing, analytics, and customer-experience services to commercial enterprises, government agencies and healthcare organizations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. SHUB JOHNS & HOLBROOK LLP Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 E-mail: bjohns@shublawyers.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. Justin C. Walker, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com jwalker@msdlegal.com CONDUENT BUSINESS: Fails to Protect Private Information, Knick Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA KNICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-17033 (D.N.J., October 29, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and similarly situated Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information (PII) and personal health information (PHI), which, as a result, is now in criminal cyberthieves' possession. The complaint relates that as a service provider to the healthcare industry, the Defendant knowingly obtains sensitive patient PII/PHI including their names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, medical treatment information, and health insurance information. On January 13, 2025, hackers targeted and accessed Defendant's network server and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive, confidential PII and PHI stored therein. On October 24, 2025, the Defendant posted its notice informing Plaintiff that her Private Information was accessed and exposed to unauthorized hackers in the Data Breach. The Plaintiff greatly values her privacy and is very careful about sharing her sensitive Private Information. She would not have provided her Private Information to her healthcare provider or to Defendant had she known it would be kept using inadequate data security and vulnerable to a cyberattack, says the suit. To recover from Defendant for these harms, Plaintiff, on her own behalf and on behalf of the Class, brings claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and unjust enrichment. Amanda Knick is a citizen and resident of Gallatin County, Montana. She is a patient of a healthcare provider that utilized Defendant's services prior to the Data Breach. Her Private Information was and continues to be stored and maintained in Defendant's network systems. Conduent Business Services, LLC is a provider of digital business solutions and services to clients across the healthcare, commercial, government, and transportation sectors, and maintains its principal place of business in Florham Park, New Jersey.[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 - Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 E-mail: jonm@pittmandutton.com - and - Domenic A. Cossi, Esq. WESTERN JUSTICE ASSOCIATES, PLLC 303 West Mendenhall Street, Suite 1 Bozeman, MT 59715 Telephone: (406) 587-1900 E-mail: domenic@westernjusticelaw.com CONDUENT INC: Medrano Sues Over Inadequate Data Security Measures ----------------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL MEDRANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONDUENT INCORPORATED, CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, and HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-17082-MEF-MAH (D.N.J., October 31, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants arising from a data breach that exposed the personally identifiable information and protected health information of at least 10,515,849 individuals, including Plaintiff's. To provide its services, Conduent collects, processes, and stores Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Conduent assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. Despite its duties to Plaintiff and Class Members, Conduent stored their private information on a database that was negligently and/or recklessly configured. This misconfiguration allowed files on the database to be accessed without a password or any form of multifactor authentication, alleges the suit. As a result of Conduent's failure to protect the sensitive information it was entrusted to safeguard, the Plaintiff and Class Members have already suffered harm and have been exposed to a significant and continuing risk of identity theft, financial fraud, and other identity related fraud for years to come, the suit says. Conduent Incorporated is a technology company based in New Jersey that provides back-office services to government agencies and healthcare organizations.[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 - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Barrett J. Vahle, Esq. Tanner J. Edwards, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com vahle@stuevesiegel.com tanner@stuevesiegel.com CONSOLIDATED MAINTENANCE: Doctolero Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Consolidated Maintenance Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Eric Doctolero, on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. Consolidated Maintenance Solutions, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company, Does 1-100, Case No. 25CV025219 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 20, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Consolidated Maintenance Solutions is a national HVAC service provider that offers self-performed repair and maintenance services in California, Texas, and Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin P. Rodriguez, Esq. SHIMODA & RODRIGUEZ LAW, PC 9401 E Stockton Blvd., Ste. 120 Elk Grove, CA 95624-5050 Phone: 916-525-0716 Fax: 916-760-3733 Email: jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com CONTEXTLOGIC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- ContextLogic Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Beginning in May 2021, four putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, its directors, certain of its officers and the underwriters named in its initial public offering ("IPO") registration statement alleging violations of securities laws based on statements made in its registration statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC in connection with its IPO and seeking monetary damages. One of these cases has since been dismissed by the plaintiff and the remaining three have been coordinated and consolidated. In May 2022, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs, who subsequently filed an amended consolidated class action complaint pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On April 10, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and asserted only claims made under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. In December 2023, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended consolidated complaint. In February 2024, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint, which the defendants have moved to dismiss. In August 2024, the Court granted the motion to dismiss without leave to amend and with prejudice. In September 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion to alter judgment noticed for hearing in January 2025. In February 2025, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to alter judgement. In March 2025, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. In September 2025, plaintiffs filed their opening brief to the Ninth Circuit. The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend them. Based on the preliminary nature of the proceedings in these cases, the Company cannot estimate a range of potential losses at this point in time. ContextLogic Inc. is a mobile ecommerce company that connects merchants' products to users based on user preferences. COVENANT TRANSPORT: Seeks Denial of Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------- 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 Defendants ask the Court to enter an order denying bid for class certification. The Plaintiffs cannot carry their burden to provide "significant proof" to establish the factors under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) to justify class treatment. As such, the Court should deny class certification and strike the class allegations in the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint. The Plaintiffs define the putative class they seek to represent as follows: "All individuals who, from Jan. 1, 2023 through the present (the "Class Period") applied for a job opening in the State of Washington with Defendant where the job posting did not disclose the wage scale or salary range for the position." In short, the Plaintiffs' proposed class cannot be ascertained without a liability determination requiring individualized analysis, the Defendant contends. The Court should deny class certification to protect Covenant from unnecessarily expending time, resources, and incurring the business disruption of litigating this lawsuit as a class action. The Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint against the Defendant alleging a single violation of the wage, salary, and benefits disclosure requirements for job postings under the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act ("EPOA"). Covenant is a transportation logistics company, providing trucking, delivery, and long-haul team driving delivery service nationwide. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W3tqPl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig J. Ackermann, Esq. Brian Denlinger, Esq. Avi Kreitenberg, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C. 2602 N. Proctor St., #205 Tacoma, WA 98406 Telephone: (253) 625-7720 Facsimile: (310) 277-0635 E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com bd@ackermanntilajef.com ak@ackermanntilajef.com jb@ackermanntilajef.com The Defendants are represented by: Breanne Sheetz Martell, Esq. Derek A. Bishop, Esq. Madhura Panjini, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101.3122 Telephone: (206) 623-3300 Facsimile: (206) 447-6965 E-mail: bsmartell@littler.com debishop@littler.com mpanjini@littler.com CRACKER BARREL: Fritsch Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Charles Fritsch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the Plan v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00540 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on Oct. 29, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01249 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. Labor. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., doing business as Cracker Barrel -- https://www.crackerbarrel.com/ -- is an American chain of restaurant and gift stores with a Southern country theme.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew T. Legando, Esq. MERRIMAN LEGANDO WILLIAMS & KLANG, LLC 1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: (216) 522-9000 Fax: (216) 522-9007 Email: drew@merrimanlegal.com - and - Alexander Thomas Ricke, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Ste 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 714-7100 Fax: (816) 714-7101 Email: ricke@stuevesiegel.com - and - Caleb J. Wagner, Esq. George A Hanson, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 714-7140 Email: wagner@stuevesiegel.com hanson@stuevesiegel.com - and - Ryan L. McClelland, Esq. MCCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C. The Flagship Building 200 Westwoods Drive Liberty, MO 64068 Phone: (816) 781-0002 Email: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: David A. Nenni, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS LLP PNC Center 201 East Fifth Street, 26th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 322-5041 Fax: (513) 898-0051 Email: david.nenni@jacksonlewis.com - and - Joseph Edward Conley, Jr., Esq. BUECHEL & CONLEY, PLLC 178 Barnwood Dr. Edgewood, KY 41017 Phone: (859) 331-5500 Fax: (859) 331-2519 Email: jec@bclfirm.com CUSTOM BUILDING: Cazares Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Juana Martinez Cazares, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and the general public, and as an "Aggrieved Employee" on behalf of other "Aggrieved Employees" under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 v. CUSTOM BUILDING PRODUCTS, LLC, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV27825 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Oct. 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10422. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges the following causes of action: Failure to Pay All Wages Earned for All Hours Worked and the Correct Rates of Pay; Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Indemnify; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Pay Wages Owed Every Pay Period; Failure to Pay Wages When Employment Ends; Civil Penalties; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Todd B. Scherwin, Esq. Drew M. Tate, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 Email: tscherwin@fisherphillips.com dtate@fisherphillips.com DISFRUTING TWO: Underpays Restaurant Employees, Lopez Says ---------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL BERMUDEZ LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DISFRUTING TWO LLC (D/B/A ALISON ST. MARK'S), ENRIQUE LERMA, and ANNE O'HARE, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08885 (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2025) is a collective action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and the Spread of Hours Wage Order, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Bermudez was employed by Defendants at Alison St. Mark's from May 2025 until October 3, 2025. He worked as a food runner, server and barback. However, he was required to spend a considerable part of his work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to receiving deliveries and stocking them in the basement, polishing glasses and utensils, cleaning the shelves of the glasses, restocking wines in the basement and the restaurant, and bringing up items from the basement. He worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, spread of hours pay and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. The complaint alleges that the Defendants employed the policy and practice of disguising Plaintiff Bermudez's actual duties in payroll records by designating him as a food runner, server and barback instead of a non-tipped employee. This allowed Defendants to avoid paying Plaintiff Bermudez at the minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay him at the lower tip-credit rate (which they still failed to do). Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiff Bermudez to all other similarly situated employees. Plaintiff Bermudez is a former employee of Defendants Disfruting Two LLC d/b/a Alison St. Mark's. Defendants Enrique Lerma and Anne O'Hare own, operate, or control an American bistro/restaurant, located at 110 St. Mark's Place, New York, NY 10009 under the name "Alison St. Mark's".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 DONALD TRUMP: Class Cert Hearing Set for Nov. 17 ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLY MIOT, et al v. DONALD TRUMP, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02471 (D.D.C., Filed July 30, 2025), the Hon. Judge Ana C. Reyes entered an order directing the Government to respond to Motion for Class Certification by Nov. 7, 2025. The Plaintiffs may reply by Nov. 12, 2025. The Court will not toll deadlines in this case according to the Chief Judge's Standing Order No. 25-55 (JEB) during the lapse of appropriations. The Court will hold a hearing on the motion on Nov. 17, 2025, at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom 12. The suit alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the of the United States.[CC] DOW JONES: Dawkins Sues Over Unlawful Interception -------------------------------------------------- Monica Dawkins, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons v. DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:25-at-01489 (E.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2025), is brought on behalf of all California residents who have accessed and used www.wsj.com (the "Website") which violates the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") as a result of the Defendant unlawful interception and tracking. The Defendant surreptitiously installs and operates tracking software on the Website without providing users with adequate notice or obtaining their informed consent. The software is intentionally deployed to accomplish Defendant's commercial objectives, including identity resolution, targeted advertising, and the monetization of consumer data. To achieve these goals, Defendant enables third-party technologies, that function as unlawful pen registers and/or trap and trace devices, to capture detailed information about users' electronic communications such as Internet Protocol ("IP") addresses, session data, and clickstream activity in real time. These tools operate covertly and without judicial authorization, violating the CIPA where, as here, Plaintiff and Class Members did not consent to the interception, nor did Defendant secure a court order permitting such surveillance, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was in California when she visited the Website on multiple occasions during the class period. DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC. is a Delaware corporation that owns, operates, and/or controls the Website which is an online platform that offers goods and services to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reuben D. Nathan, Esq. NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: (949) 270-2798 Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com - and - Ross Cornell, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROSS CORNELL, APC 40729 Village Dr., Suite 8 - 1989 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315 Phone: (562) 612-1708 Email: rc@rosscornelllaw.com ELITE MEDICAL: Maynor Sues Over Unlawful Wage Deductions -------------------------------------------------------- Andreas MAYNOR, Sara FLYNN, and Pablo ACEVEDO, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ELITE MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company; MARK NICKS; RHONDA RANGEL VANDENBERG, an individual; and CKVAMB, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 2025LA001378 (Cir. Ct., Dupage Cty., Ill., October 29, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendants for making unauthorized, adverse deductions from Plaintiffs' earned compensation, in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. According to the complaint, the case is filed on behalf of the scores of current and former Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) and Paramedics, during the statutory period who, despite devoting thousands of hours per year to critical life-saving work, have not been paid their promised, agreed, and earned wages for their work. The complaint alleges that the EMTs and Paramedics had earned wages taken directly out of their paychecks without prior or concurrent authorization, allegedly to pay for moving violations the company had received from the City of Chicago and other municipalities, issued to their ambulance vehicles. This amounts to theft of wages, asserts the complaint. Neither Maynor, Flynn, nor Acevedo ever authorized any adverse deductions to be made from their pay to pay for moving violations issued to Elite. They seek recovery of those unlawfully deducted wages and the statutory penalties related thereto and what other remedies the Court would deem necessary and proper to prevent further violations, the complaint says. Plaintiffs Andreas Maynor and Sara Flynn were EMTs, and Plaintiff Pablo Acevedo was a paramedic employed by the Defendants. Defendant ELITE MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, LLC is an Illinois LLC that operates ambulance services, contracted with various private and public medical institutions and facilities. Defendant CKVAMB, LLC, is an Illinois limited liability company which owns the shares or units of defendant ELITE. Defendants VANDENBERG and NICKS worked as managers of ELITE.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ramsin G. Canon, Esq. CANON LAW OFFICE, P.C. 332 S Michigan Ave Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60604 E-mail: ramsin@canonlawgroup.com ENPHASE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Hayes Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Enphase Energy Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Hayes securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On July 15, 2024, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company, its chief executive officer and its chief financial officer (collectively, the "Initial Defendants") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Hayes v. Enphase Energy, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-04249 (the "Securities Class Action"), purportedly on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired its common stock between December 12, 2022 and April 25, 2023. The Securities Class Action alleges that Initial Defendants made false and/or misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On or about July 29, 2024, six additional stockholders filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff and have their selection of counsel appointed as lead counsel in the Securities Class Action. The Court held a hearing on the lead plaintiff motions on September 5, 2024, and appointed Lon D. Praytor as lead plaintiff on March 31, 2025. On April 17, 2025, movant Andrey Ponomarchuk filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order appointing Praytor as lead plaintiff. Lead plaintiff Praytor filed an amended complaint on May 21, 2025, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by Enphase and its chief executive officer, purported only on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired its common stock between February 7, 2023 and April 25, 2023 and removing its chief financial officer as a defendant (the remaining defendants referred hereto as "Defendants"). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 2, 2025. Lead Plaintiff's filed his opposition on August 15, 2025, and Defendants' filed their reply on September 15, 2025. A hearing is currently scheduled for November 6, 2025. Enphase Energy, Inc. is a global energy technology company. The company delivers smart, easy-to-use solutions that manage solar generation, storage and communication on one intelligent platform. The company revolutionized the solar industry with their microinverter technology and it produces a fully integrated solar-plus-storage solution. The company is based in Fremont, California. EREDI PISANO: Faces Valencia Suit Over Website's Access Barriers ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN VALENCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EREDI PISANO USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09003 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.eredipisano.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Eredi Pisano USA, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com ESSOR GROUP INC: Garcia Sues Over Unlawful Charges -------------------------------------------------- Silvia Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ESSOR GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a WWW.BOKA.COM, Case No. 25STCV32134 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 31, 2025), is brought on behalf of all others similarly situated after purchasing an automatically renewing paid subscription at www.boka.com (the "Website"), which caused Plaintiff to incur unlawful charges from Defendant related to an automatic renewal or continuous service in violation Of California's Automatic Renewal Law (the "ARL"), California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (the "CLRA"), California's Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL"), California's False Advertising Law (the "FAL"), California Business & Professions Code 17500 et seq., and California's Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL"), California Business & Professions Code 17200. The Defendant made unlawful automatic renewal and/or continuous service Offers to consumers in California in the ARL by: (1) failing to provide "clear and conspicuous" disclosures mandated by California law; and (2) failing to provide an acknowledgment to consumers that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service Offer terms, the cancellation policy, and information regarding how to cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the consumer. The ARL imposed a statutory duty upon Defendant to disclose such information to consumers who purchased subscriptions from Defendant or entered into continuous service agreements with Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a product named Orange Cream n-Ha Toothpaste from Defendant via the Website. The Defendant is an online retailer that sells products nationwide and in California.[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 EVENFLO COMPANY: Toney Sues Over Defective and Unsafe Car Seats --------------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Toney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00358 (S.D. Ohio, Oct. 23, 2025), is brought on behalf all others similarly situated who purchased certain Evenflo Revolve Slim 360 car seats (collectively herein "the Products") which were dangerously unsafe for infants. Unfortunately, nearly 325,000 Products sold across the country are unfit for their intended purpose because they are dangerously unsafe for infants. On September 29, 2025, the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) issued a recall on certain car seats manufactured by Evenflo, for a choke hazard pertaining to its car seat headrest. The Products are manufactured, advertised, sold, and distributed by Defendants or its agents, to consumers, including Plaintiff, across the United States. All of these products were manufactured by Defendants, distributed to other corporations, and then sold to consumers across the United States. Through marketing and sale, the Defendants represented that the Products are safe for children. The corporate website proclaims "Family First, Always" as a theme for reassuring consumers that they provide safe products. They further brag about "Safety Innovation" and "Thoughtful Design" on the website "About Page." The Plaintiff and consumers do not know, and did not have a reason to know, that the Products purchased carried the potential for choking hazards. Consumers expect the products they purchased to be safe, especially products aimed towards children. The Defendant's proposed recall solution does not address the underlying cause of the recall or restore confidence that Plaintiff and proposed class members have with the safety of the product. At the time of their purchases, Defendant did not notify Plaintiff, and similarly situated consumers, of the Product's choking hazard through the product labels, instructions, packaging, advertising, or in any other manner, therefore, acting in violation of state and federal laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Products. Evenflo Company, Inc. is a foreign Corporation that is registered in the State of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew S. Baker, Esq. THE BAKER LAW GROUP 89 E Nationwide Blvd., 2nd Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 228-1882 Email: andrew.baker@bakerlawgroup.ne - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: Tel: (803) 222-2222 Email: pauldoolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com EWINDOWCOVERINGS LLC: Blind Can't Access Website, Hampton Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EWINDOWCOVERINGS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13266 (N.D. Ill., October 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.blindster.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Ewindowcoverings LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (716) 281-5496 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law EXIT 9 BROOKLYN: Jones Sues Over Online Store's Access Barriers --------------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXIT 9 BROOKLYN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-08989 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.shopexit9.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Exit 9 Brooklyn, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com EXPEDIA GROUP: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maricela Mata, Bibiana Hernandez, Jose Ramon López Regueiro, Mario Echevarría, Aureliano A. Echevarría, and Maria Echevarría Ochoa, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Expedia Group, Inc., Expedia, Inc., Hotels.com L.P., Hotels.com GP, and Orbitz, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-22529-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline to file their response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendants request that the Court extend the deadline to file their response by 14 days, making Defendants' response due 28 days after Plaintiffs file their motion for class certification (i.e., January 21, 2026, if Plaintiffs file their motion on the December 24, 2025, deadline). If Plaintiffs file their motion for class certification on or shortly before the deadline, the Defendants will be unable to meet the response deadline despite due diligence because the 14-day briefing period will fall over the Christmas and New Year holidays, and Defendants' offices will be closed from December 24, 2025 to January 1, 2026. On July 23, 2025, the Court entered an Order Setting Trial and Pre-Trial Schedule, Requiring Mediation, and Referring Certain Matters to the Magistrate Judge. Expedia is an American travel technology company that owns and operates travel fare aggregators and travel metasearch engines. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aU7JqR at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: David D. Shank, Esq. Cheryl Joseph LaFond, Esq. Lauren Ditty, Esq. Becca Jahnke, Esq. SCOTT DOUGLASS &MCCONNICO LLP 303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 495-6300 Facsimile: (512) 495-6399 E-mail: dshank@scottdoug.com clafond@scottdoug.com lditty@scottdoug.com bjahnke@scottdoug.com - and - Lorayne Perez, Esq. AKERMAN LLP Three Brickell City Centre 98 Southeast Seventh Street, Suite 1100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 374-5600 Facsimile: (305) 349-4656 E-mail: lorayne.perez@akerman.com FDS ALUMINUM: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Mendez Says -------------------------------------------------------- JOSE EMIR RIVERA MENDEZ, DANIEL MUNOZ, AURELIO RONALDO SANCHEZ PEREZ, JOSE LUIS ACOSTA FONSECA and LUIS FELIPE PARDO ZUNIGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs -against- FDS ALUMINUM USA LLC and CLEMENTE JOSE FERNANDES DE SOUSA, as individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06056 (E.D.N.Y., October 29, 2025) is a collective action complaint to recover damages for egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiffs' employment with the Defendants. The complaint alleges that all individuals who are or have been employed by the Defendants as window installers, window technician assistants, sealant technicians, or other similarly titled personnel -- with substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions -- performed the same sort of functions for Defendants, excluding those in executive and management positions. These individuals were subject to the Defendants' common practices, policies, programs, procedures, protocols, and plans, including the willful failure and refusal to pay required minimum and overtime wage compensation. The Defendants also employed approximately 20 or more individuals during the relevant time period who were subjected to similar payment structures. The Plaintiffs often complained to the Defendants regarding their overtime pay, unpaid wages and the lack of any documentation with their pay, but the Defendants continue to fail and refuse to pay appropriate overtime wages and issue any documentation showing how Plaintiffs' pay was calculated, adds the complaint. As a result of the Defendants' violations of Federal and New York State labor laws, the Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and liquidated damages. The Plaintiffs also seek interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies the Court deems appropriate. Plaintiffs JOSE EMIR RIVERA MENDEZ, DANIEL MUNOZ and AURELIO RONALDO SANCHEZ PEREZ were employed as a window installers by Defendants. Plaintiff JOSE LUIS ACOSTA FONSECA was a window technician assistant, while Plaintiff LUIS FELIPE PARDO ZUNIGA was a sealant technician. Defendant FDS ALUMINUM USA LLC, is a domestic limited liability company located at 5149 Simonson Street, Elmhurst NY 11373. Through its agents, officers, managers and supervisors, FDS maintains direct control, oversight, and direct supervision over its employees including Plaintiffs in the performance of their duties, which among others include scheduling of work and payment of wages.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: 718-263-9591 Facsimile: 718-263-9598 FEDERAL EXPRESS: Jackson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Federal Express Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Ashle Kay Jackson, on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. Federal Express Corporation, Does 1-100, Case No. 25CV025229 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 20, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." FedEx Corporation -- https://www.fedex.com/ -- originally known as Federal Express Corporation, is an American multinational conglomerate holding company specializing in transportation, e-commerce, and business services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Harteker, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 6200 Canoga Ave. 470, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: 818-914-3433 Email: rebecca@frontierlawcenter.com FIREFLY AEROSPACE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Jan. 12 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Portnoy Law Firm advises Firefly Aerospace, Inc., ("Firefly" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FLY) investors off a class action on behalf of investors that bought securities between August 7, 2025 and September 29, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Firefly investors have until January 12, 2026 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/firefly-aerospace-inc. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for pursuing claims to recover their losses. According to the complaint, the Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's IPO were negligently prepared. Specifically, during the class period, the Offering Documents and defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Firefly had overstated the demand and growth prospects for its Spacecraft Solutions offerings; (ii) Firefly had overstated the operational readiness and commercial viability of its Alpha rocket program; and (iii) the foregoing, once revealed, would likely have a material negative impact on the Company. Plaintiff alleges that on September 22, 2025, Firefly reported disappointing financial results for the second quarter of 2025. On this news, Firefly's stock price fell $7.58 per share, or 15.31%, to close at $41.94 per share on September 23, 2025. Then, on September 29, 2025, Firefly disclosed that "the first stage of Firefly's Alpha Flight 7 rocket experienced an event that resulted in a loss of the stage." On this news, Firefly's stock price fell $7.66 per share, or 20.73%, to close at $29.30 per share on September 30, 2025. As of the time the complaint was filed, Firefly's stock price continues to trade significantly below the $45.00 per share Offering price, damaging investors. 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 Telephone: (310) 692-8883 lesley@portnoylaw.com www.portnoylaw.com [GN] FIRSTENERGY CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------------- FirstEnergy Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In re FirstEnergy Corp. Securities Litigation (S.D. Ohio); on July 28, 2020, and August 21, 2020, purported stockholders of FE filed putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Those actions have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff, the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association, has been appointed by the court. A consolidated complaint was filed on February 26, 2021. The consolidated complaint alleges, on behalf of a proposed class of persons who purchased FE securities between February 21, 2017 and July 21, 2020, that FE and certain current or former FE officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing alleged misrepresentations or omissions concerning FE's business and results of operations. The consolidated complaint also alleges that FE, certain current or former FE officers and directors, and a group of underwriters violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act as a result of alleged misrepresentations or omissions in connection with offerings of senior notes by FE in February and June 2020. On March 30, 2023, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On April 14, 2023, FE filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit seeking to appeal that order. On August 13, 2025, the Sixth Circuit vacated the S.D. Ohio's order granting class certification. On October 14, 2025, the S.D. Ohio scheduled oral arguments for November 6, 2025, to further consider class certification in light of the Sixth Circuit's decision. On October 17, 2025, plaintiffs filed a notice with the S.D. Ohio withdrawing their claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act pertaining to the FE senior notes. On July 29, 2024, FE filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit a Petition for Writ of Mandamus asking the Sixth Circuit to direct the S.D. Ohio to deny plaintiffs' motion to compel disclosure of FE's privileged internal investigation materials. On October 3, 2025, the Sixth Circuit granted FE's Petition for Writ of Mandamus and vacated the S.D. Ohio’s order to produce privileged internal investigation materials. On October 9, 2025, plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing of that decision. The Sixth Circuit directed FE to respond to plaintiffs' petition by October 30, 2025. FE believes that it is probable that it will incur a loss in connection with the resolution of this lawsuit. Given the ongoing nature and complexity of such litigation, FE cannot yet reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss. FirstEnergy Corp., through its subsidiaries, provides various electric utility services in the United States. The Company is based in Akron, Ohio. FLAG & ANTHEM: Alexandria Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA ALEXANDRIA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLAG & ANTHEM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09009 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.flagandanthem.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Flag & Anthem, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com FOODPREP SOLUTIONS: Class Cert Bid Responses in Gawlik Due Nov. 18 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gawlik v. FoodPrep Solutions LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-10615 (D. Mass., Filed March 17, 2025), the Hon. Judge Indira Talwani allowing motion for extension of Time to File Response motion to Certify Class or Collective. -- Responses due by Nov. 18, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). FoodPrep specializes in professional knife sharpening and food equipment services.[CC] FOOTPRINTS CAFE: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Hernandez Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOOTPRINTS CAFE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06077 (E.D.N.Y., October 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.footprintscafenyc.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Footprints Cafe, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com FORTUNE BRANDS: Gonzalez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fortune Brands Innovations Group, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jose Martinez Gonzalez, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fortune Brands Innovations Group, Inc., Assa Abloy Accessories and Door Controls Group Inc., Assa Abloy Entrance Systems US Inc., Emtek Products Group LLC, Fortune Brands Innovations Group Inc., Case No. 25STCV32233 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 23, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Fortune Brands Innovations -- https://www.fbin.com/ -- is an industry-leading home, security and digital products company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Molly Ann DeSario, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd., Ste. 300 Los Angeles, CA 90024-4937 Phone: 310-438-5555 Fax: 310-300-1705 Email: mdesario@tomorrowlaw.com GEICO SECURE: Faces Class Suit Over Underpaid Auto Policyholders ---------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that four policyholders filed a class action lawsuit against Geico Secure Insurance Co., Geico Casualty Insurance Co., Geico Advantage Insurance Co. and Government Employees Insurance Co. Why: The plaintiffs allege Geico underpaid policyholders for the actual cash value of their total loss vehicle claims. Where: The Geico class action lawsuit was filed in Ohio federal court. Geico policyholders recently filed a class action lawsuit against the auto insurer, claiming it underpaid them for their total loss vehicle claims. Plaintiff Jamil Abdullah and three others filed the class action complaint against Geico Secure Insurance Co., Geico Casualty Insurance Co., Geico Advantage Insurance Co. and Government Employees Insurance Co. on Oct. 30 in Ohio federal court. They allege violations of state and federal consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs say they each purchased Geico auto insurance policies from one of the Geico operating units in Ohio and made first-party insurance claims when they suffered damage to their vehicles. Geico allegedly declared their vehicles a total loss, requiring it to pay the actual cash value (ACV) of those vehicles. Instead of paying ACV, as required by the insurance policies and Ohio law, Geico reduced the payment amount by deducting an arbitrary “condition adjustment” from the actual cost of comparable vehicles used to determine the ACV, even though neither Geico nor its valuation vendor CCC Intelligent Solutions inspected the comparable vehicles, the Geico class action lawsuit says. Geico underpaid ACV claims using a condition adjustment, class action alleges The plaintiffs argue Geico’s practice of deducting a condition adjustment from the ACV of total loss vehicles violates its insurance policies and Ohio law. They say the condition adjustment is applied categorically without regard for the unique characteristics of comparable vehicles and is contrary to appraisal standards and methodologies. The Geico class action lawsuit claims the insurer’s conduct represents a scheme and design to mislead and defraud its insureds and benefit financially through improper and deceptive means. The plaintiffs seek to represent an Ohio class of Geico insureds who suffered damage to their vehicles that were determined to be a total loss and received an ACV payment based on a CCC One Market Valuation Report. In a separate lawsuit filed in Texas federal court in February, policy holders accused GEICO of misleading people with its accident forgiveness policy and unfairly raising premiums for customers who believed they were protected by this policy. The plaintiffs are represented by Patrick J. Perotti and Frank A. Bartela of Dworken & Bernstein Co. LPA, James A. DeRoche of Garson Johnson LLC, and Erik D. Peterson of Erik Peterson Law Offices PSC. The Geico class action lawsuit is Abdullah, et al. v. Geico Secure Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02339-CEF, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. [GN] GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Burkhart" -------------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the case captioned Burkhart et al. v. Genworth Financial et al. In September 2018, Genworth Financial, Genworth Holdings, Genworth North America Corporation, Genworth Financial International Holdings, LLC ("GFIH") and Genworth Life Insurance Company ("GLIC") were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned Richard F. Burkhart, William E. Kelly, Richard S. Lavery, Thomas R. Pratt, Gerald Green, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Genworth et al. The plaintiffs allege that GLIC paid dividends to its parent and engaged in certain reinsurance transactions causing it to maintain inadequate capital capable of meeting its obligations to GLIC policyholders and agents. The complaint alleges causes of action for intentional fraudulent transfer and constructive fraudulent transfer and seeks injunctive relief. "We moved to dismiss this action in December 2018. On January 29, 2019, the plaintiffs exercised their right to amend their complaint. On March 12, 2019, we moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint. On April 26, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to our motion to dismiss, which we replied to on June 14, 2019. On August 7, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to prevent proceeds that GFIH expected to receive from the then planned sale of its shares in Genworth MI Canada Inc. ("Genworth Canada") from being transferred out of GFIH. On September 11, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion seeking the same relief as their August 7, 2019 motion with an exception that allowed GFIH to transfer $450 million of expected proceeds from the sale of Genworth Canada through a dividend to Genworth Holdings to allow the pay-off of a senior secured term loan facility dated March 7, 2018 among Genworth Holdings as the borrower, GFIH as the limited guarantor and the lending parties thereto. Oral arguments on our motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs' motion occurred on October 21, 2019, and the plaintiffs' motion was denied. On January 31, 2020, the Court granted in part our motion to dismiss, dismissing claims relating to $395 million in dividends GLIC paid to its parent from 2012 to 2014 (out of the $410 million in total dividends subject to the plaintiffs' claims). The Court denied the balance of the motion to dismiss leaving a claim relating to $15 million in dividends and unquantified claims relating to the 2016 termination of a reinsurance transaction. On March 27, 2020, we filed our answer to the plaintiffs' amended complaint. On May 26, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a second amended and supplemental class action complaint adding additional factual allegations and three new causes of action. On July 26, 2021, we moved to dismiss the three new causes of action and answered the balance of the second amended and supplemental class action complaint. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to our motion to dismiss on September 30, 2021. The Court heard oral arguments on the motion on December 7, 2021 and ordered each party to file supplemental submissions, which were filed on January 28, 2022. On May 10, 2022, the Court granted our motion to dismiss the three new causes of action. On January 27, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin GFIH from transferring any assets to any affiliate, including paying any dividends to Genworth Holdings and to enjoin Genworth Holdings and Genworth Financial from transferring or distributing any value to Genworth Financial's shareholders. On June 2, 2022, the plaintiffs withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction. On January 12, 2024, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. We filed our opposition papers on February 23, 2024. "On March 25, 2025, we filed a motion for summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint, and the plaintiffs filed opposition papers as well as a motion for rule 56(d) relief on May 14, 2025. On June 18, 2025, we filed reply papers in further support of our motion for summary judgment and moved separately to strike the plaintiffs' motion. The plaintiffs opposed our motion to strike on July 11, 2025. "We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action," the Company stated. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Fox" Suit -------------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the lawsuit styled Fox v. GLAIC. "In March 2024, GLAIC was served with a putative class action lawsuit venued in the Superior Court of the State of California, Sacramento County, captioned James Fox, individually and on behalf of the class v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Co. The plaintiff, the holder of a lapsed California GLAIC life insurance policy, seeks to represent a class of current and former California GLAIC policyholders and beneficiaries whose policies were allegedly wrongfully terminated. "The complaint alleges that GLAIC wrongfully terminated hundreds of California life insurance policies by failing to provide the policyholders with the notices and grace periods mandated by the contract and by the California Insurance Code as interpreted by the California Supreme Court in McHugh v. Protective Life Ins. Co. The complaint asserts causes of action for breach of contract, violation of the California Insurance Code, unfair competition and bad faith, and it seeks, inter alia, declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs. The action was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 3, 2024. On May 8, 2024, we answered the complaint. On October 15, 2024, the court granted our motion to stay the action pending final determination of an appeal in a related case. On March 4, 2025, the court lifted the stay, and the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 21, 2025. On June 2, 2025, we answered the complaint and moved to strike its class action allegations. The plaintiff filed opposition papers to our motion to strike on June 16, 2025. The plaintiff moved to remand the matter to state court on June 30, 2025, and we opposed that motion on July 22, 2025. On August 19, 2025, the court denied both our motion to strike the class allegations and the plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from that order on September 18, 2025, but the appeal was dismissed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on October 1, 2025. "We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action," the Company stated. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Kaplan" ------------------------------------------------ Genworth Financial, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission continues to defend itself against the lawsuit styled Kaplan v. GLIC. "On January 17, 2025, GLIC, Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York and various AARP entities were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia captioned Sharon R. Kaplan and Richard A. Kaplan on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life Insurance Co. et al. "The complaint alleges that the Genworth and AARP defendants violated the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act by affirmatively misrepresenting and failing to adequately disclose information regarding the pricing structure and likelihood of rate increases for the My Future My Plan 2 series of long-term care insurance policies. The complaint further alleges that the Genworth defendants breached the terms of the relevant insurance contracts by increasing premiums because of the policies' inflation protection component and by acting unreasonably in violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages and civil penalties. We removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on April 17, 2025. We moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action on May 15, 2025, and the plaintiff opposed that motion on July 7, 2025. "We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action," the Company stated. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend MOVEit Security Breach Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the class action lawsuit styled In Re MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. "Starting in June 2023, various Genworth entities (including Genworth Financial, GLIC and GLAIC) have been named as defendants in certain putative class action lawsuits in the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Virginia and the District of Massachusetts. These cases are captioned as follows: Anastasio v. Genworth Financial, Inc. et al; Hauser v. Genworth Life Insurance Company; Smith v. Genworth Financial, Inc.; Behrens v. Genworth Life Insurance Company; Hale et al v. Genworth Financial, Inc.; Burkett, Jr. v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company; Manar v. Genworth Financial, Inc.; Romine et al. v. Progress Software Corporation et al.; Schwarz et al. v. Progress Software Corporation et al.; Casey et al. v. Genworth Life & Annuity Insurance Company; and Bailey v. Genworth Financial, Inc. The actions relate to the data security events involving the MOVEit file transfer system, which PBI Research Services ("PBI"), a third-party vendor, uses in the performance of its services ("MOVEit Cybersecurity Incident"). "Our life insurance subsidiaries use PBI to, among other things, satisfy applicable regulatory obligations to search various databases to identify the deaths of insured persons under life insurance policies, and to identify deaths under long-term care insurance and annuity policies which can impact premium payment obligations and benefit eligibility. The plaintiffs seek to represent various classes and subclasses of Genworth long-term care insurance policyholders and agents whose data was accessed or potentially accessed by the MOVEit Cybersecurity Incident, alleging that Genworth breached its purported duty to safeguard their sensitive data from cybercriminals. The complaints assert claims for, inter alia, negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of various consumer protection and privacy statutes, and they seek, inter alia, declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs. On October 4, 2023, the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order consolidating all actions relating to the MOVEit Cybersecurity Incident before a single federal judge in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. All defendants, including the Genworth entities, filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaints on July 23, 2024. Oral argument on this motion occurred on October 9, 2024. On December 12, 2024, as relevant to Genworth, the court denied the motion. "On February 4, 2025, several defendants, including the Genworth entities, filed a second motion to dismiss the complaints, and the plaintiffs filed opposition papers on April 7, 2025. Oral argument was conducted on the second motion to dismiss on May 12, 2025. On July 31, 2025, the court granted the second motion to dismiss in part and dismissed most of the causes of action against Genworth, retaining only the claims for common law negligence, breach of implied contract, and a Massachusetts statutory violation. On September 9, 2025, we moved for partial reconsideration of certain aspects of the July 31, 2025 decision, and the plaintiffs opposed that motion on September 23, 2025. "We intend to continue to vigorously defend these actions," the Company stated. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend TVPX ARS Suit in Virginia ----------------------------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against the case captioned TVPX ARS, Inc. v. GLAIC. "In September 2018, Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company ("GLAIC"), our indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia captioned TVPX ARS, INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company. "The plaintiff alleges unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges were imposed on policyholders. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, alleging that Genworth improperly considered non-mortality factors when calculating cost of insurance rates and failed to decrease cost of insurance charges in light of improved expectations of future mortality, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs and equitable relief. "On October 29, 2018, we filed a motion to enjoin the case in the Middle District of Georgia, and a motion to dismiss and motion to stay in the Eastern District of Virginia. We moved to enjoin the prosecution of the Eastern District of Virginia action on the basis that it involves claims released in a prior nationwide class action settlement (the "McBride settlement") that was approved by the Middle District of Georgia. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 13, 2018. On December 6, 2018, we moved the Middle District of Georgia for leave to file our counterclaim, which alleges that the plaintiff breached the covenant not to sue contained in the prior settlement agreement by filing its current action. On March 15, 2019, the Middle District of Georgia granted our motion to enjoin and denied our motion for leave to file our counterclaim. As such, the plaintiff is enjoined from pursuing its class action in the Eastern District of Virginia. On March 29, 2019, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Middle District of Georgia, notifying the Court of its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the order granting our motion to enjoin. On March 29, 2019, we filed our notice of cross-appeal in the Middle District of Georgia, notifying the Court of our cross-appeal to the Eleventh Circuit from the portion of the order denying our motion for leave to file our counterclaim. On April 8, 2019, the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the case without prejudice, with leave for the plaintiff to refile an amended complaint only if a final appellate Court decision vacates the injunction and reverses the Middle District of Georgia's opinion. On May 21, 2019, the plaintiff filed its appeal and memorandum in support in the Eleventh Circuit. We filed our response to the plaintiff's appeal memorandum on July 3, 2019. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on the plaintiff's appeal and our cross-appeal on April 21, 2020. On May 26, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Middle District of Georgia's order enjoining the plaintiff's class action and remanded the case back to the Middle District of Georgia for further factual development as to whether Genworth has altered how it calculates or charges cost of insurance since the McBride settlement. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals did not reach a decision on Genworth's counterclaim. On June 30, 2021, we filed in the Middle District of Georgia our renewed motion to enforce the class action settlement and release and renewed our motion for leave to file a counterclaim. The briefing on both motions concluded in October 2021. On March 24, 2022, the Court denied our motions. On April 11, 2022, we filed an appeal of the Court's denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On June 22, 2022, we filed our opening brief in support of the appeal. The plaintiff filed its respondent's brief on September 20, 2022, and we filed our reply brief on November 10, 2022. The appeal was orally argued on August 17, 2023, and on January 8, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit entered an order affirming the district court's order. "On January 29, 2025, we moved for rehearing by the panel and by the full court. On March 4, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit denied our motion for rehearing. On March 7, 2025, the plaintiff refiled its complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On May 9, 2025, we moved to dismiss the refiled complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 24, 2025 and a second amended complaint on July 14, 2025. On July 28, 2025, we moved to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiff opposed our motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on August 25, 2025, and the court has scheduled a trial date for late April 2026. "We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action," the Company stated. GOSPEL LIGHT: Butcher-Smith Sues to Recover Compensation -------------------------------------------------------- Triza Butcher-Smith and Kathleen Johnson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GOSPEL LIGHT MENNONITE CHURCH MEDICAL AID PLAN, INC. dba LIBERTY HEALTHSHARE, Case No. 5:25-cv-02331 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 29, 2025), is brought to recover compensation liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (the "Ohio Wage Act"), the Ohio Prompt Pay Act ("OPPA"). The Plaintiffs and the Putative Plaintiffs regularly worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours in a work week. Based on Defendant's companywide policy, the Plaintiffs and the Putative Plaintiffs were required to perform work "off-the- clock" and without pay. Under the FLSA and the Ohio Wage Acts, Defendant was required to pay for all hours the Plaintiffs worked and pay her 150% of their regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. By willfully failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and the Putative Plaintiffs, who performed work off-the-clock, Defendant violated the FLSA and the Ohio Acts, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant. Gospel Light Mennonite Church Medical Aid Plan, Inc. dba Liberty HealthShare is a non-profit corporation formed in Virgina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Nickole K. Iula, Esq. Anna R. Caplan, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Phone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com niula@barkanmeizlish.com acaplan@barkanmeizlish.com HAIR SHOP: Alexandria Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website --------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA ALEXANDRIA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HAIR SHOP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-09008 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.thehairshop.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. The Hair Shop, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com HAVENLY INSIDE: Hampton Suit Seeks Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------------ PHYLLIS HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAVENLY INSIDE, LLC, d/b/a THE INSIDE, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13305 (N.D. Ill., October 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.theinside.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, the lack of navigation links, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Havenly Inside, LLC, doing business as The Inside, is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (844) 731-3343 Facsimile: (716) 281-5496 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law HOMELAND SECURITY: Court Orders Unsealing of Testimony Records -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as D.V.D., et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants, No. 25-cv-10676-BEM (D. Mass.), Magistrate Judge Donald L. Cabell of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts allowed in part and denied in part the motion by the New York Times Company and other news organizations to intervene and unseal court records. The Court granted intervention and allowed unsealing of testimony by Marcos D. Charles, a Department of Homeland Security official, but denied unsealing of a declaration by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth except for paragraphs one and two. The named plaintiffs in this class action case are noncitizens with final removal orders. They challenge the practice of Defendant of designating them for removal to countries not included in their removal orders without first providing them notice and an opportunity to seek protection based on a fear of prosecution or torture. The six-count complaint includes claims under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 706, the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 2201, and the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 552. In April 2025, the Court issued a preliminary injunction requiring Defendant to provide to aliens meaningful notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to their removal to a third country. The terms of the injunction require that prior to removing any alien to a third country, Defendant must provide written notice to the alien and the alien's immigration counsel of the third country to which the alien may be removed, in a language the alien can understand, provide meaningful opportunity for the alien to raise a fear of return for eligibility for Convention Against Torture protections, move to reopen the proceedings if the alien demonstrates reasonable fear, and if the alien is not found to have demonstrated reasonable fear, provide meaningful opportunity and a minimum of 15 days for that alien to seek to move to reopen immigration proceedings to challenge the potential third-country removal. On May 20, the Court convened an emergency hearing at 4:25 p.m. without providing notice of the hearing on the docket. At the time of the May 20 hearing, Defendant was in the process of flying eight aliens, including six class members, purportedly to South Sudan. The Court ordered Defendant to maintain custody and control of class members currently being removed to South Sudan or to any other third country, to ensure the practical feasibility of return if the Court finds that such removals were unlawful. The Court continued the May 20 hearing to the following day. Charles testified at the May 21 hearing. The subject of his redacted testimony concerns the details of Defendant's May 20 transport of the eight aliens. The Court determined that Defendant violated the Preliminary Injunction by failing to provide six non-citizen class members a meaningful opportunity to assert claims for protection under the Convention Against Torture before initiating removal to a third country. The Court provided a remedy for the violation requiring that the six class members be given a reasonable fear interview in private, subject to certain additional requirements. In support of the motion for reconsideration, Defendant filed a motion to seal the Hegseth declaration. The plaintiffs did not oppose the motion to seal. The Court granted the motion the same day. In granting the unopposed motion, the Court did not issue a written opinion or an explanation for the ruling on the docket. The movants argued that they have a First Amendment and a common law right of access to the subject records. They contended that Defendant publicized the information in the subject records, thereby undercutting any argument for their continued nondisclosure. The movants pointed to the absence of a reason on the docket, or one stated during the May 21 hearing, as a basis to initially seal the subject records. In opposition, Defendant acknowledged that there is a presumption of public access to judicial records under the common law. Defendant argued primarily that compelling interests, specifically protecting national security and foreign affairs as well as preventing disclosure of sensitive law enforcement information, outweigh any public right of access under the common law and the First Amendment. The Court found that the common law presumes a right of public access to judicial records. The Court noted that relevant documents which are submitted to and accepted by a court of competent jurisdiction in the course of adjudicatory proceedings become documents to which the presumption of public access applies. The Court determined that both the redacted portion of Charles' testimony in the transcript and the Hegseth declaration constitute judicial records to which the common law presumption applies. Regarding the Hegseth declaration, the Court found that the balancing warrants keeping the seven-paragraph declaration sealed except for the first and second paragraphs. The Court stated that paragraphs four through six of the declaration address matters affecting national security and the disclosure of those matters would negatively affect that interest. The Hegseth declaration also addresses foreign policy interests, specifically in paragraphs three and seven. The Court found that like the national security interests, the foreign policy interests are compelling and forceful and they warrant continued nondisclosure. Regarding Charles' redacted testimony, the Court found that the common law right of access does not protect Charles' redacted testimony from disclosure. The Court noted that Defendant bears the burden of persuasion to show a compelling interest to justify nondisclosure. However, unlike the showing regarding the Hegseth declaration, Defendant did not file any affidavits and did not address the substance of the redacted testimony. The Court found that Defendant offered little if any detail about why the subjects of Charles' redacted testimony should remain sealed. The Court determined that Defendant did not satisfy its burden of showing a compelling interest that outweighs the presumption favoring public access. Accordingly, Charles' redacted testimony shall be filed on the public docket. The Court further found that three independent reasons establish that the First Amendment right of access does not compel production of the Hegseth declaration. First, a preliminary injunction motion is not a dispositive motion. Second, neither the First Circuit nor the Supreme Court has recognized any right under the First Amendment to access documents filed in civil cases. Third, even assuming that the complementary considerations of history and logic yield affirmative answers, there are overriding interests, specifically protecting national security and foreign policy interests, that are narrowly tailored to serve these interests. In accordance with the foregoing discussion, the motion to intervene and unseal court records was allowed as to intervention and allowed in part and denied in part as to unsealing the subject records. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GGEj4u from PacerMonitor.com HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Nadler Sues Over Mislabeled Air Purifiers ------------------------------------------------------------------ LAUREN NADLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a HONEYWELL, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06105-NCM-LKE (E.D.N.Y., October 31, 2025) is a class action against Defendant Honeywell for false and misleading representations that it made and continues to make about its Honeywell HEPA Air Purifiers that come equipped with the Filter R and the standalone Filter R Replacement Products. According to the complaint, the Defendant represented that the Products were equipped with High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters and met HEPA filtration standards when, in fact, they did not. Independent testing by Plaintiff's counsel has shown that the filters used in the Air Purifiers and the replacement filters do not meet HEPA standards. The Defendant also misrepresented that its products were "True HEPA" and "Certified HEPA." That claim is allegedly misleading for three reasons: (1) the Products did not in fact meet the HEPA performance standard, Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant has not individually tested and verified each of its Products to be HEPA-grade in accordance with its certification claim, and there is no such certification program for HEPA filters; (2) the Defendant knew its Products did not meet HEPA standards but continued to sell the Air Purifiers and Replacement R Filters, capitalizing on consumer demand for these Products since the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic; and (3) the Defendant has profited greatly from the explosion in the air purifier market brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic and yearly "once-in-a-lifetime" wildfires that have ravaged the United States. The Plaintiff is now seeking a return of the HEPA-related premiums that Defendant charged for its Products, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated purchasers for violations of New York's General Business Law, breach of express warranty, fraud, and unjust enrichment. Honeywell International, Inc., d/b/a Honeywell, is an American publicly traded, multinational conglomerate corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. It markets and sells the Products in multiple distribution channels, including but not limited to Amazon.com, Walmart, Best Buy, Target, and on its own website, www.honeywellstore.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: aleslie@bursor.com - and - L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Luke Sironski-White, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com lsironski@bursor.com - and - Greg Sinderbrand, Esq. SINDERBRAND LAW GROUP, P.C. 2829 Townsgate Road, Suite 100 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (818) 370-3912 E-mail: greg@sinderbrandlaw.com HOYT ARCHERY INC: Montpetit Suit Transferred to D. Colorado ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Brock Montpetit, 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. 3:25-cv-00653 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, 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-03455-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: Jeffrey David Klobucar, Esq. REITER & SCHILLER, P.A. 25 North Dale Street The Academy Professional Building Saint Paul, MN 55102 Phone: (651) 209-9760 Fax: (651) 292-9482 Email: jklobucar@foleymansfield.com The Defendant is represented by: Wendy Katharine Arends, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 33 East Main Street, Suite 300 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 258-7382 Fax: (608) 258-7138 Email: wendy.arends@huschblackwell.com - and - Anna M. Rathbun, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 637-2200 - and - Brendan Edward Ryan, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 333 West Wolf Point Plaza Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 862-3620 - and - William M. Katz, Jr., Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, PA 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5200 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 665-3600 Fax: (214) 665-3601 Email: bill.katz@gtlaw.com HTNY 1: Does Not Properly Pay Restaurant Employees, Ramirez Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE RODRIGO CARRERO RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HTNY 1, INC. (d/b/a HAPPY TUNA SUSHI & CRISPY RICE), MOMOYA 5 INC. (d/b/a HAPPY TUNA SUSHI & CRISPY RICE), MOMOYA 4 INC. (D/B/A HAPPY TUNA SUSHI & CRISPY RICESOHO), KWANG HO LEE, and JENNIFER LEE, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-08878 (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2025) is a collective action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), the New York Labor Law (NYLL), the Spread of Hours Wage Order, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The complaint relates that Plaintiff Carrero was employed by Defendants as a delivery order preparer and packager from approximately April 2024 until May 1, 2025. He regularly handled goods in interstate commerce such as food and drinks. Throughout his employment with Defendants, he regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. From approximately April 2024 until December 2024, he was paid $16 per hour. From approximately January 2025 until May 1, 2025, he was paid $17.50 per hour in three separate checks for the hours worked in each of the three restaurants. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants did not provide him with an accurate statement of wages with each payment of wages; the Defendants never provided him with a written notice, in English and in Spanish (his primary language), of his rate of pay, employer's regular pay day, and such other information; no notification, either in the form of posted notices or other means was ever given to him regarding overtime and wages under the FLSA and NYLL. As a result of Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiff Carrero with a Notice of Pay Rate or accurate Wage Statements with each payment of wages, he was prevented from: (i) comparing his rate of pay to his hours worked; (ii) realizing that he was underpaid; and (iii) advocating for himself and/or taking appropriate action to obtain the payments due to him, says the suit. Plaintiff Jose Rodrigo Carrero Ramirez is a former employee of Defendants. Defendants Kwang Ho Lee and Jennifer Lee own, operate and/or control three restaurants: HTNY 1, INC. (d/b/a Happy Tuna Sushi & Crispy Rice) located at 380 Lexington Avenue New York, N.Y. 10075; Momoya 5 Inc. (d/b/a Happy tuna Sushi & crispy Rice) located at 355 W. 36th Street New York, N.Y. 100185; and Momoya 4 Inc. (d/b/a Happy tuna Sushi & crispy Rice Soho) located at 380 Broome Street New York, N.Y. 10013.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 HURLEY INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Fake Discounts ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Kyle McCarty filed a class action lawsuit against Hurley International LLC. Why: McCarty claims Hurley uses fake discounts at its outlet stores. Where: The Hurley class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit claims Hurley International misleads consumers into overpaying for products sold at its outlet stores by using fake discounts. Plaintiff Kyle McCarty's class action lawsuit alleges Hurley advertises fake discounts off of inflated and fictitious original prices at its outlet stores to drive up demand. "Retailers like Defendant exploit this dynamic by advertising deceptive discounts that promise significant savings," the Hurley class action lawsuit says. McCarty wants to represent a nationwide class and California class of consumers who purchased one or more products from a Hurley outlet store at discounts from an advertised reference price during the applicable statute of limitations period. The plaintiff accuses Hurley of violating California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act and engaging in fraud by omission and affirmative misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. McCarty demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of actual, consequential, statutory and punitive damages for himself and all class members. Class action: Hurley fake discounts create 'artificial market pressure' McCarty argues Hurley's use of fake discounts creates "artificial market pressure and perceived scarcity or value" that triggers an increase in consumer willingness to pay. "Over time, this shifts the market equilibrium, allowing the seller to profit from a manufactured illusion of value," the Hurley class action lawsuit says. McCarty claims Hurley's conduct violates multiple state and federal laws, including California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act. The plaintiff argues Hurley's fake discounts lead consumers to believe they are receiving a bargain when, in fact, they are overpaying based on an inflated, imaginary benchmark. Earlier this year, three consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Fossil Group, accusing the company of posting fabricated former and regular prices to create the illusion of discounts on products sold on its website and at Fossil Outlet Stores in California. McCarty is represented by Todd D. Carpenter and Scott G. Braden of Lynch Carpenter LLP. The Hurley class action lawsuit is McCarty v. Hurley International LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-02117-JO-SBC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. [GN] HYUNDAI MOTOR: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to April 3, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEDIGHEH BATTLE, LONNIE ASHTON, and HERMON MCCOY on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, and Does 1 through 5, inclusive, Case No. 8:23-cv-02035-JWH-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Holcomb entered an order continuing class certification deadlines as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their motion for class certification is continued from Nov. 3, 2025 to Apr. 3, 2026. 2. The Defendants' deadline to file their opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is continued from Dec. 15, 2026 to May 15, 2026. 3. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply in support of their motion for class certification is continued from Jan. 26, 2026 to June 26, 2026. 4. The hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is continued from Feb. 11, 2026 to July 14, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. Hyundai manufactures, sells, and exports passenger cars, trucks, and commercial vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9tkya9 at no extra charge.[CC] INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Appeals Court Dismisses Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Foley & Lardner LLP secured a significant victory at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on behalf of Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. (IIP), obtaining affirmation of a dismissal with prejudice in a federal securities fraud class action. The putative class action -- Michael V. Mallozzi, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., et al. -- was initially filed in April 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit alleged that IIP, a publicly traded real estate investment trust focused on the acquisition, ownership, and management of specialized industrial properties and financial investments in the life science industry, and certain officers made false or misleading statements regarding the company's business in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, SEC Rule 10b‑5, and related provisions on behalf of individuals who purchased IIP's common stock during claimed class periods. Following multiple amended complaints, Foley moved to dismiss at each stage. On September 25, 2024, the district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint with prejudice, rejecting the plaintiffs' allegations. The plaintiffs appealed to the Third Circuit, challenging the dismissal order. Oral argument took place on June 17, 2025. On October 15, 2025, the Third Circuit issued an opinion affirming the district court's dismissal with prejudice, marking a decisive victory for IIP. The result demonstrates Foley's prowess in securities class actions and appellate litigation. Foley's litigation and appellate team included Todd Murray, Stacy Obenhaus, Andrew Howell, and Christopher DeGennaro, and Stephanie McPhail. [GN] INTERACTIVE DATA: Illegally Lists Cellular Numbers, Gaskins Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES GASKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERACTIVE DATA, LLC and FOREWARN, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 9:25-cv-81347 (S.D. Fla., October 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act. The case arises from the Defendants' practice of listing the Plaintiff's and Class members' cellphone numbers for a commercial purpose: (a) to entice individuals to pay to acquire access to Interactive Data and Forewarn subscriptions and/or credits; and (b) to fulfill the Defendants' obligations to individuals who have paid for Interactive Data and Forewarn subscriptions and/or credits. According to the complaint, the Defendants never request nor receive Coloradans' affirmative consent, through written, oral, or electronic means, to such listing. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the privacy rights of the Plaintiff and Class members have been invaded. Interactive Data, LLC is a data broker, with its principal place of business in Boca Raton, Florida. Forewarn, LLC is a data broker, with its principal place of business in Boca Raton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen A. Beck, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave., Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 Email: sbeck@bursor.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: jmarchese@bursor.com - and - Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 50 Main Street, Suite 475 White Plains, NY 10106 Telephone: (914) 874-0708 Facsimile: (914) 206-3656 Email: mgirardi@bursor.com INTERSTATE BACKGROUND: Dickerson Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHEAL DICKERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERSTATE BACKGROUND RESEARCH, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-04198-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill., Nov. 3, 2025) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Interstate Background Research, Inc. is a pre-employment screening company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Tel: (816) 281-7162 Email: jwatkins@sirillp.com JACKSON NATIONAL: Deducts Inflated Insurance Charges, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES L. ARMSTRONG, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff vs. JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-853 (W.D. Mo., October 30, 2025) is a class action complaint against the Defendant for breach of contract to recover amounts that Defendant charged Plaintiff and the proposed class in excess of amounts authorized by the express terms of their life insurance policies. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased from Allied Life Insurance Company, Defendant's predecessor in interest, an "Adjustable Life Insurance Policy" bearing policy number IN0128292, with a policy date of April 27, 1988, and an initial specified amount of $100,000 (the "Policy"). The Plaintiff has always been both the "owner" and the "insured" under the Policy, which remains in force. The Defendant is the effective and liable insurer of the Policy, and the policies meeting the class definition (the "Class Policies"). In addition to a death benefit, the Policy and Class Policies provide policy owners an investment, savings, or interest-bearing component that accumulates value over time. Although the savings component in certain Class Policies may be identified by a different name, it is identified in the Policy and throughout the Complaint as the "account value." Generally, under universal life policies like those owned by Plaintiff and class members, premiums are deposited into the account value of the policy, and the insurer deducts certain amounts directly from premium payments and monthly deductions from the account value as authorized by the policy. The Policy authorizes the Defendant to deduct 6% from each premium as an Expense Charge. The funds held in the account value are policy owner property that Defendant holds in trust for its policy owners. Although the Policy and Class Policies authorize Defendant to determine cost of insurance rates based on its "expectations as to future mortality experience," the Defendant does not determine such rates based on those expectations. Instead, the Defendant uses other undisclosed factors to determine such rates, including without limitation, non-mortality expenses. The complaint alleges that by failing to determine monthly cost of insurance rates based on its expectations as to future mortality experience, the Defendant repeatedly breaches the Policy and Class Policies by impermissibly inflating those rates such that they exceed Defendant's expectations as to future mortality experience. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's breaches, Plaintiff and the class have been damaged, and those damages are continuing in nature in that Defendant has deducted and will continue to deduct cost of insurance charges from the account values of policy owners in unauthorized amounts, says the suit. Plaintiff James L. Armstrong resides in Lee's Summit, Missouri, and is a citizen of the State of Missouri. Defendant Jackson National Life Insurance Company is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Michigan, with its principal place of business in Lansing, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick J. Stueve, Esq. Ethan M. Lange, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: 816-714-7100 Facsimile: 816-714-7101 E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com E-mail: lange@stuevesiegel.com - and - John J. Schirger, Esq. Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq. SCHIRGER FEIERABEND LLC 6811 Shawnee Mission Parkway, Suite 312 Overland Park, KS 66202 Telephone: 816-561-6500 Facsimile: 816-561-6501 E-mail: schirger@SFlawyers.com E-mail: feierabend@SFlawyers.com JSN NETWORK: Castelli Sues Over Unlawful Wage Practices ------------------------------------------------------- Brianna Castelli, individually and as Class Representative, on behalf of other similarly situated restaurant managers v. JSN NETWORK, INC., MCHENRY DONUTS, INC., JOHNSBURG COFFEE LLC, ALGONQUIN COFFEE, INC., ANTIOCH ORCHARD ST. COFFEE, INC., UNKNOWN CORPORATE NAME 1 [469 W. LIBERTY STREET, WAUCONDA, IL 60084], J & SP FOOD, INC., MCHENRY RT. 31 COFFEE, INC., JAYANTILAL PATEL, SURESH PATEL, NILESH PATEL, ALKA PATEL, CURT PEDRO, NAIMESH UPADHYAYA, and SHONA BONNEY, Case No. 1:25-cv-13208 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 29, 2025), is brought arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendants unlawful wage practices. The Plaintiff's offer letter detailed her compensation to be $60,000 per year including a 6-day work week with 55 hours per week. the Plaintiff's was offered a position as a salaried employee. As an exempt employee, Plaintiff must receive full salary for any week she performed any work. On multiple occasions in 2022, 2023, and 2024, upon information and belief, one or more of the Defendants made deductions from Plaintiff's predetermined salary. On numerous weeks when Plaintiff worked less than her weekly requirement, The Defendants paid Plaintiff on an hourly basis rather than her bi-weekly salary of $2,307.69. The Defendants made the decision willfully to violate the FLSA and pay Plaintiff hourly on weeks when as an exempt employee, she was entitled to her weekly salary. The Defendants knew or acted with reckless disregard for whether its conduct of paying a salaried/exempt employee on an hourly basis violated the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants JSN Network at the McHenry Donuts location starting on September 19, 2022. JSN Network controls and manages 50+ Dunkin' and Baskin Robbins locations in the JSN Network.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kent D. Sinson, Esq. SINSON LAW GROUP 100 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 332-2107 Fax: (312) 332-4508 Email: kent@sinsonlawgroup.com JUNESHINE INC: Pham Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Juneshine, Inc. The case is styled as Richard Pham, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Juneshine, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-02915-JES-SBC (S.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. JuneShine -- https://juneshine.com/ -- offers quality canned cocktails and hard kombucha.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26TH Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com KANSAS: Englund Sues Over Unlawful Extension of Probation --------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY ENGLUND, ALICIA MCKNIGHT, DEBRA NICOLE RICE, and ALANNA CARTER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STATE OF KANSAS, KRIS KOBACH, in his official capacity as the Attorney General for the State of Kansas, KANSAS OFFICE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, BUTLER & ASSOCIATES, P.A., JOHNSON COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, CHIEF JUDGE JAMES CHARLES DROEGE, in his official capacity as Chief Judge for the Johnson County Kansas District Court, and JUDGE MICHAEL JOYCE, JUDGE NEIL B. FOTH, JUDGE SARA WELCH, JUDGE BRENDA CAMERON, and JUDGE CHRISTINA DUNN GYLLENBORG, in their official capacities as District Judges for the Johnson County Kansas District Court, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02632 (D. Kan., October 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Kansas Constitution. The case arises from the Defendant Judges' practice of extending the Plaintiffs' probation due to failure to pay restitution without a hearing or finding regarding their ability to pay and without representation of counsel. According to the complaint, the practice of ongoing probation extension deprives the Plaintiffs of the right to privacy, subjects them to cruel and unusual punishment, denies them fundamental fairness and due process, places restrictions on their right to vote, and imposes upon them the badge and indicia of slavery. State of Kansas is a government entity in Kansas. Butler & Associates, PA is a private collections agency, with its principal place of business in Topeka, Kansas. Kansas Office of Judicial Administration is the administrative body of the Kansas State Supreme Court. Johnson County District Court is a judicial body within the State of Kansas Judiciary. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Monica Bennett, Esq. Jefferson Wolfe, Esq. ACLU OF KANSAS P.O. Box 13048 Overland Park, KS 66282 Telephone: (913) 490-4100 Email: mbennett@aclukansas.org jwolfe@aclukansas.org - and - Craig C. Martin, Esq. John Mitchell, Esq. Matthew Thomas, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 300 N. LaSalle Dr. Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 728-9000 Email: cmartin@willkie.com jmitchell2@willkie.com mthomas@willkie.com KAVERE SERVICES: Bigler Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kavere Services, Inc. The case is styled as Crystal Bigler, Rachel Garza, and Christina Flores, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Kavere Services, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0016181 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Oct. 30, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Kavere Services -- https://kavere.com/ -- is a leading provider of comprehensive support and care for disabled individuals in Stockton, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Venardi, Esq. VENARDI ZURADA LLP 101 Ygnacio Valley Rd., Ste. 100 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-7025 Phone: 925-937-3900 Fax: 925-937-3905 Email: mvenardi@vzlawfirm.com KETTLE AND FIRE: Cohen Sues Over Mislabeled Chicken Bone Broth -------------------------------------------------------------- LAYLA COHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KETTLE AND FIRE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01485-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal., Nov. 3, 2025) alleges violation of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California's Unfair Competition Law, and the California's False Advertising Law. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is engaged in false and misleading labeling and marketing on its Kettle & Fire "Classic Chicken Bone Broth," and all substantially similar Products (the "Products") manufactured, sold, and produced by Defendant, which prominently claim to have between 17-19 grams of protein (the "Protein Representations"). Upon third party testing of the Defendant's 16.9 oz Classic Chicken Bone Broth -- which Defendant claims contains 19 grams of protein -- found that the Product contained only 76% of the protein than Defendant claims is in the Product. Indeed, independent testing conducted by Plaintiff's counsel confirmed that the Product contained less protein than Defendant claims is in the Product. As such, two separate sources testing Defendant's Product found that Defendant overstates the protein content of its Product by approximately 20%, says the suit. The Plaintiff and the other Subclass Members suffered a substantial injury by virtue of buying the Product that they would not have purchased absent Defendant's unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair marketing, advertising, packaging, and omission about the defective nature of the Product. Kettle and Fire Inc. distributes meat products. The Company offers keto and bone broths, soups, curry, and other products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joshua B. Glatt, Esq. Karen B. Valenzuela, Esq. Ryan B. Martin, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jglatt@bursor.com kvalenzuela@bursor.com rmartin@bursor.com KRISTI NOEM: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Pinchi Due Nov. 14 ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 P. Casey Pitts entered an order granting stipulation to briefing schedule for Respondents' response to Petitioners' amended complaint, motion for class certification, and motion to stay: 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. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rer2RY 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 KROGER CO: Bid to Dismiss First Amended Class Action Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mary Tomassian v. The Kroger Co., Case No. 2:25-cv-05608-JFW-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Walter entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss first amended class action complaint. The hearing calendared for Nov. 3, 2025, is vacated and the matter taken off calendar. The Court finds that the issues raised by the Defendant are more appropriately resolved on a motion for summary judgment and/or motion for class certification. On Sept. 19, 2025, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss First Amended Class Action Complaint. On Oct. 10, 2025, the Plaintiff filed her Opposition. On Oct. 24, 2025, the Defendant filed an untimely Reply. Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and multi-department stores throughout 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=ETwLJM at no extra charge.[CC] LEADPOINT INC: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leadpoint, Inc. The case is styled as Erin Wilson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Leadpoint, Inc. doing business as: SecureRights, Case No. 1:25-cv-06200-SCJ (N.D. Ga., Oct. 29, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Leadpoint, Inc. doing business as SecureRights -- https://securerights.org/ -- is a third-party verification service dedicated to protecting consumers from fraud and privacy violations.[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 LEGATO MEGER: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Einride AB -------------------------------------------------------------- Class Action Attorney Juan Monteverde with Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. The firm is headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and is investigating Legato Meger Corp. III (NYSE: LEGT) related to its merger with Einride AB. Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Legato shareholders will receive one share of Einride common stock for each Legato ordinary share issued in the form of American depository shares. Is it a fair deal? Click here for more info https://monteverdelaw.com/case/legato-meger-corp-iii/. 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] LIEN ENFORCEMENT: Conroy Files Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lien Enforcement, Inc. The case is styled as Jacob Conroy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lien Enforcement, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-02935-BTM-BLM (S.D. Cal., Oct. 30, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit. Lien Enforcement, Inc. -- https://lienenforcementinc.com/ -- is a specialized debt collection agency that focuses on recovering deficiency amounts for towing clients across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Johnathan Thornton Greenway, Esq. GUARDIAN LITIGATION GROUP, LLP 17850 Fitch Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (800) 316-3133 Email: johng@guardianlit.com LIFECORE BIOMEDICAL: Continues to Defend Minnesota Shareholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Lifecore Biomedical, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend itself against a shareholder suit pending in a Minnesota court. On July 29, 2024, a putative class action complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders of the Company in the United States District Court of Minnesota against the Company and certain of its named executive officers. The complaint generally alleges that statements made to the Company's stockholders between October 7, 2020, and March 19, 2024 regarding the Company's financial results, internal controls, remediation efforts, periodic reporting, and financial prospects were false and misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the individual defendants are liable for such statements because they are controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs, and attorneys' fees. On November 15, 2024, the Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and their respective counsel. The co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 24, 2025, which contained substantially similar allegations and claims as those set forth in the original complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on March 25, 2025, and the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on May 23, 2025. In November 2025, the Company and individual defendants entered into an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle this matter, without any admission of wrongdoing, which is subject to court approval. If approved by the court in its current form, this proposed settlement is expected to be covered by the Company's insurance policies with no material loss incurred by the Company. The Company continues to believe that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them if the settlement is not so approved. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Faces Class Suit Over Oakley Fake Discounts ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Jesse Cantu filed a class action lawsuit against Luxottica of America Inc. Why: Cantu claims Luxottica of America falsely advertises products sold on its Oakley website as being discounted. Where: The Oakley class action lawsuit was filed in California state court. A new class action lawsuit accuses Luxottica of America Inc. of falsely advertising products sold on its Oakley website as being discounted. Plaintiff Jesse Cantu claims Luxottica of America advertises fictitious regular prices and corresponding phantom discounts on products sold through its website, which he argues allows the company to fabricate a fake reference price and present an actual price as discounted when it is not. "The reference price is, therefore, an artificially inflated price," the Oakley class action lawsuit says. "In turn, the advertised discounts are nothing more than phantom markdowns." Cantu argues Luxottica of America's alleged pricing and advertising practices are "patently deceptive" and intended to mislead customers into believing they are getting a bargain by buying products on sale and at a substantial and deep discount. Cantu wants to represent a California class of consumers who purchased one or more of Luxottica of America's products from the Oakley website while in California within the statute of limitations period at a purported discount from a higher reference price. Cantu claims Luxottica of America is guilty of violating California's False Advertising Law and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Oakley class action: Luxottica of America ignored decades of federal guidance Cantu claims Luxottica of America's alleged pricing scheme is "deceptive" and intended to influence customer behavior by artificially inflating customer perceptions of a given item's value and causing customers to spend money they otherwise would not have. "Defendant had the opportunity to follow decades of significant industry guidance from the federal Government for its bargain advertising and comparative price advertising practices," the Oakley class action lawsuit says. Cantu demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of statutory and punitive damages for himself and all class members. In a case involving similar fake discount allegations, a customer is suing Sunglass Hut for advertising inflated "reference prices" to create the illusion of significant discounts on its sunglasses website. The plaintiff is represented by Scott J. Ferrell of Pacific Trial Attorneys APC. The Oakley class action lawsuit is Cantu v. Luxottica of America Inc., Case No. 25STCV15816, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. [GN] LX HAUSYS: Filing for Settlement Joint Report Due August 8, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sompo America Insurance Company, v. LX Hausys America, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-02832-JFW-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Walter entered a scheduling and case management order as follows: Trial (jury): Mar. 23, 2027 Hearing on motions in limine; Hearing on Mar. 5, 2027 disputed jury instructions: Pre-trial conference: Feb. 19, 2027 Last day to conduct settlement Aug. 4, 2026 conference/mediation: Last day to file joint report re: results Aug. 8, 2026 of settlement conference/mediation LX manufactures and markets building materials. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Sm91w7 at no extra charge.[CC] MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 1, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA JONES, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01613-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Kymberly K. Evanson entered an order setting case schedule as follows: Event Date Deadline for joining additional parties: Dec. 1, 2025 Deadline for pre-class certification Mar. 2, 2026 discovery: Deadline for the Plaintiff's motion Apr. 1, 2026 for class certification: Deadline for the Defendant's response to May 1, 2026 the plaintiff's class certification motion: Deadline for the Plaintiff's reply in May 22, 2026 support of its motion for class certification: Marriott is an American multinational company that operates, franchises, and licenses lodging brands. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=blyLlu at no extra charge.[CC] MEDICAL ANSWERING: Faces Paliy Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- ROKSOLANA PALIY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDICAL ANSWERING SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-06102 (E.D.N.Y., October 31, 2025) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that she and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendant: (1) unpaid wages for off-the-clock pre-shift work (turning on computers, logging into ADP and other systems before clocking in), (2) unpaid wages for off-the-clock post-shift work (completing calls after scheduled shift end time), (3) unpaid overtime wages resulting from such uncompensated time, (4) liquidated damages, and (5) attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant to work as a customer service representative from November 19, 2024 through July 11, 2025. Medical Answering Services, LLC is a nationwide provider of medical answering services, operating call centers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Kansao, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Ave., Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 E-mail: robert@employeejustice.com MEMPHIS, TN: Kiner Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REV. DR. GERALD KINER, V. CITY OF MEMPHIS and MEMPHIS LIGHT, GAS & WATER DIVISION (MLGW), Case No. 2:25-cv-02987-MSN-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3); 2. Appointing Rev. Dr. Gerald Kiner as Class Representative; 3. Extending all injunctive and equitable relief requested in the pending Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Complaint to all members of the class; and 4. Granting any further relief as the Court deems just and proper in the interests of justice and equity. The proposed class is defined as: "All Memphis and Shelby County residents and entities who, within the past four (4) years, have paid utility rates, surcharges, or municipal taxes to the City of Memphis or its division, Memphis Light, Gas & Water (MLGW)." The action seeks to protect all Memphis and Shelby County ratepayers and taxpayers who have suffered financial injury from Defendants' ongoing fraudulent and unconstitutional conduct, including systematic overbilling, misuse of public funds, and concealment of fiscal irregularities within the City of Memphis and its division, Memphis Light, Gas & Water (MLGW). Memphis is a city on the Mississippi River in southwest Tennessee. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xSj6Cn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff appears pro se: Rev. Dr. Gerald Kiner (Pro Se Plaintiff) 4400 Hickory Hill Road Memphis, TN 38141 Telephone: (901) 650-7340 E-mail: GeraldKiner@gmail.com NEOGENOMICS INC: Continues to Defend Goldenberg Class Suit in NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- NeoGenomics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Goldenberg shareholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On December 16, 2022, a purported shareholder class action captioned Daniel Goldenberg v. NeoGenomics, Inc., Douglas VanOort, Mark Mallon, Kathryn McKenzie, and William Bonello was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers as defendants ("the Goldenberg Matter"). This lawsuit was filed by a stockholder who claims to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between February 27, 2020 and April 26, 2022. The lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact were made in the Company's public disclosures in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding the Company's menu of tests, business operations and compliance with health care laws and regulations. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Goldenberg Matter on February 5, 2024 and the plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion on March 21, 2024. The parties are awaiting the court's ruling on the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees and expert fees. The court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the Goldenberg Matter. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the claims alleged in the lawsuits, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail. As of the filing of this report with the SEC, the outcome of these matters is not estimable or probable. NeoGenomics Inc. is a cancer reference laboratory that provides cancer testing and partnership programs to pathologists and oncologists.[BN] NEW DESSERTS LLC: Gomez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Desserts, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Laura Gomez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. New Desserts, LLC, Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CU25-09861 (Cal. Super. Ct., Solano Cty., Oct. 21, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment." New Desserts, LLC doing business as Just Desserts LLC -- https://justdessertsllc.com/ -- is a caterer that provides gourmet cakes, cupcakes, cookies, and chocolate-dipped treats.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Horton, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP 149 Sheldon St. El Segundo, CA 90245-3916 Phone: 424-290-3095 Fax: 866-264-7880 Email: peter@protectionlawgroup.com NEWELL BRANDS: Martin Sues Over Unlawful Safety Defect ------------------------------------------------------ Karin Martin, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NEWELL BRANDS INC. and SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-06075-AT (N.D. Ga., Oct. 23, 2025), is brought seeking damages, equitable, and injunctive relief due to the Safety Defect in the Ovens, as well as Defendants' unlawful conduct in concealing the Safety Defect, failing to cure the Safety Defect, and or failing to adequately compensate Plaintiff and the Class members for the economic harm they have suffered as a result of the Safety Defect. On September 25, 2025, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") announced the recall (the "Recall") of approximately 1.29 million Oster French Door Countertop Ovens imported and distributed by Defendant Sunbeam Products, Inc., with model numbers TSSTTVFDXL, TSSTTVFDDG, TSSTTVFDMAF, and TSSTTVFDDAF (the "Defective Products," "Oven," or "Ovens"). The Defendants marketed, sold, and delivered each of these Ovens to consumers with an identical defect: defective spring-loaded, front open doors (the "Safety Defect"). The spring-loaded hinges in these doors fail to securely hold the doors open and snap shut, causing the doors to close unexpectedly, burningconsumers during ordinary use. The Safety Defect causes the doors to get stuck, prevents them from opening partially, and has characteristics that can cause the doors to break and shatter, melt, or even explode. The Safety Defect renders the Ovens unusable and unfit for their intended purpose – cooking. The Defendants have known of the Safety Defect since at least 2022, but they failed to disclose the Safety Defect to consumers. This Safety Defect, which Defendants have only now acknowledged through the Recall, creates a risk of injury and poses a fire hazard for users of the Defective Products, making them unusable and valueless. The Safety Defect existed at the time that the Ovens left Defendants' possession and control, but did not manifest until users, like Plaintiff, experienced door malfunctions while using the Ovens, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased her Oven online from Amazon.com and received delivery of the Oven at her Ohio home. The Defendants manufactured, distributed, marketed, advertised, and sold the Defective Products nationwide and in a uniform manner.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Caplan, Esq. T. Brandon Waddell, Esq. CAPLAN COBB LLC 75 Fourteenth Street NE, Suite 2700 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 596-5600 Fax: (404) 596-5604 Email: mcaplan@caplancobb.com - and - Mark J. Dearman, Esq. Dorothy P. Antullis, Esq. Nicolle B. Brito, Esq. Anny M. Martin, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561/750-3000 Fax: 561/750-3364 Email: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com dantullis@rgrdlaw.com nbrito@rgrdlaw.com amartin@rgrdlaw.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Jason H. Alperstein, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com jalperstein@carelleabyrne.com NEWMONT CORP Faces Securities Suit over SEC Disclosures ------------------------------------------------------- Newmont Corporation 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 January 31, 2025, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Newmont and Newmont's Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer and then Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The action was brought on behalf of an alleged class of Newmont stockholders who owned stock between February 22, 2024 and October 23, 2024 (the alleged class period). The court appointed Lead Plaintiffs on May 6, 2025 who filed an amended complaint on July 14, 2025 adding Newmont's Chief Development Officer as a defendant and shortening the alleged class period to July 24, 2024 through October 23, 2024. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants made a series of materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions during the alleged class period regarding the company's operations, production, and costs in violation of federal securities laws. Plaintiffs further allege that the purported class members suffered losses and damages resulting from declines in the market value of Newmont's common stock after the company announced its third quarter 2024 results and updated guidance on October 23, 2024. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on September 12, 2025. Newmont is a global mining company headquartered in Denver, Colorado. NEXSTAR MEDIA: April 2026 Trial for Local TV Ad Antitrust MDL ------------------------------------------------------------- Nexstar Media Group, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a placeholder date for trial in In Re: Local TV Advertising Antitrust Litigation MDL is set to begin on April 1, 2026. Starting in July 2018, a series of plaintiffs filed putative class action lawsuits against the Defendants and others alleging that they coordinated their pricing of television advertising, thereby harming a proposed class of all buyers of television advertising time from one or more of the Defendants since at least January 1, 2014. The plaintiff in each lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and money damages caused by the alleged antitrust violations. On October 9, 2018, these cases were consolidated in a multi-district litigation in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois captioned In Re: Local TV Advertising Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-06785 ("MDL Litigation"). On January 23, 2019, the Court in the MDL Litigation appointed plaintiffs' lead and liaison counsel. The MDL Litigation is ongoing. The Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint was filed on April 3, 2019; the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 5, 2019. Before the Court ruled on that motion, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on September 9, 2019. This complaint added additional defendants and allegations. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and Strike on October 8, 2019. The Court denied that motion on November 6, 2020. On March 16, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint. The Third Amended Complaint added two additional plaintiffs and an additional defendant but does not make material changes to the allegations. The parties are in the discovery phase of litigation. In March 2025, the Court set a placeholder date for trial to begin on April 1, 2026. On October 1, 2025, the Court indicated that the trial will not proceed in April 2026, but did not set a new date. Nexstar and Tribune deny all allegations against them and will defend their advertising practices. NEXT BRIDGE: Discovery in Helo Securities Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------ Next Bridge Hydrocarbons Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2025, that discovery is ongoing for the Helo securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. On March 15, 2024, a securities class action captioned Targgart v. Next Bridge Hydrocarbons, Inc., et al., No. 24-cv-1927, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The action is brought on behalf of a putative class of persons or entities that acquired the Company's shares in connection with the Company's spin-off from Meta Materials, Inc., in December 2022. The complaint names as defendants the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, alleging that the Form S-1 that the Company filed with the SEC on July 14, 2022, which became effective on November 18, 2022, contained untrue statements or omissions. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified statutory and compensatory damages. Next Bridge Hydrocarbons -- https://www.nextbridgehydrocarbons.com/ -- is an energy company engaged in the acquisition, exploration, exploitation and/or development of oil and natural gas properties.[BN] NJ LENDERS: Faces Garcia Suit Over Compromised Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NJ LENDERS CORP., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-17044 (D.N.J., October 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of confidence. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach determined on September 12, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. NJ Lenders Corp. is a residential mortgage banker based in Little Falls, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA 65 Overhill Rd. Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: grunfeld@kolawyers.com NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bruce Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL NICHOLAS REID BRUCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-00442-KD-C (S.D. Ala., Nov. 13, 2025) alleges that the Defendant violated the Uniform Services Reemployment Rights Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class took periods of short-term military leave from the Defendant but were not paid their normal wages or salaries during such periods even though employees taking comparable non-military leaves did receive normal wages or salaries during their leaves. Norfolk Southern Corp. provides rail transportation services. The Company transports raw materials, intermediate products, and finished goods primarily in the Southeast, East, and Midwest and, via interchange with rail carriers, to and from the rest of the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard P. Rouco, Esq. QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO LLP Two North Twentieth Street 2 – 20th Street North, Ste. 930 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 870-9989 Email: rrouco@qcwdr.com - and - George N. Davies, Esq. QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO LLP Two North Twentieth Street 2 – 20th Street North, Ste. 930 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 870-9989 Email: gdavies@qcwdr.com - and - Justin P. Keating, Esq. BEINS, AXELROD & KEATING, P.C. 1800 Diagonal Rd Suite 600 Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (703) 966-3193 Email: jkeating@beinsaxelrod.com - and - Rodney W. Harrell, Esq. BEINS, AXELROD & KEATING, P.C. 1800 Diagonal Rd Suite 600 Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (916) 276-4715 Email: rharrell@beinsaxelrod.com NOVAVAX INC: Maryland Court Closes "Sinnathurai" Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Novavax, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a Maryland court has closed the stockholder class action filed by Sothinathan Sinnathurai. On November 12, 2021, Sothinathan Sinnathurai filed a purported securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (the "Maryland Court") against the Company and certain members of senior management, captioned Sothinathan Sinnathurai v. Novavax, Inc., et al., No. 8:21-cv-02910-TDC (the "Sinnathurai Action"). The parties ultimately negotiated a settlement, which the Maryland Court approved on May 23, 2024. The Maryland Court closed the Sinnathurai Action on May 24, 2024. NRG ENERGY: "Mirkin" Remains Pending ------------------------------------ NRG Energy, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the lawsuit styled Mirkin v. XOOM Energy (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 2019) remains pending. XOOM Energy is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in New York, alleging that XOOM Energy breached its contractual duty to set customer variable rates based on actual and estimated supply costs. The Court denied XOOM's motion for summary judgment and granted class certification. The Second Circuit denied XOOM's request to appeal the class certification grants. XOOM prevailed in its challenge to Mirkin's expert reports. The Court granted XOOM's motion to exclude both reports on damages. As a result, Mirkin has no method to establish damages for its class. The Court is considering whether class certification is still appropriate. \ Recently, this matter was moved to a new judge for further handling. A trial setting is not expected before 2026. This matter was known and accrued for at the time of the XOOM acquisition. NRG ENERGY: TCPA Suits Await Class Certification Ruling ------------------------------------------------------- NRG Energy, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the lawsuits alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act are awaiting court ruling on the class certification motions. The TCPA suits are actions involving consumers alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended, by receiving calls, texts or voicemails without consent in violation of the federal Telemarketing Sales Rule, and/or state counterpart legislation. The underlying claims of each case are similar. The Company denies the allegations asserted by plaintiffs and intends to vigorously defend these matters. These matters were known and accrued for at the time of the Direct Energy acquisition. There are two putative class actions pending against Direct Energy: (1) Holly Newman v. Direct Energy, LP (D. Md Sept 2021) - Direct Energy filed its Motion to Dismiss asserting the ruling in the Brittany Burk v. Direct Energy (S.D. Tex. Feb 2019) preempts the plaintiff's ability to file suit based on the same facts. The Court denied Direct Energy's motion stating the Court does not have the benefit of all of the facts that were in front of the Burk court to issue a similar ruling. On April 12, 2023, the Court granted Direct Energy's Motion to Transfer Venue, moving the case to the Southern District of Texas. The parties are proceeding with written discovery; and (2) Matthew Dickson v. Direct Energy (N.D. Ohio Jan. 2018) - The case was stayed pending the outcome of an appeal to the Sixth Circuit based on the unconstitutionality of the TCPA during the period from 2015-2020. The Sixth Circuit found the TCPA was in effect during that period and remanded the case back to the trial court. Direct Energy refiled its motions along with supplements. On March 25, 2022, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Direct Energy and dismissed the case. Dickson appealed and the case was sent back to the trial court. The parties conducted fact and expert discovery and Direct Energy submitted its motion for summary judgment in August 2024. The parties are waiting for a ruling from the Court on summary judgment and class certification. ONLINE INFORMATION SERVICES: Booth Files Suit in W.D. Kentucky -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Online Information Services, Inc. The case is styled as Kimberly Booth, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Online Information Services, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00705-DJH-RSE (W.D. Ky., Oct. 30, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. ONLINE Information Services, Inc. -- https://www.onlineis.com/ -- is the nation's leading developer of credit risk assessment and debt recovery solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com PACIFIC SEAFOOD: Fernandez Sues Over Failure to Sensitive Data -------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Fernandez III, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PACIFIC SEAFOOD, D/B/A DULCICH, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-01971-AR (D. Ore., Oct. 23, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. As such, Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI")—together "PII/PHI"—about its current and former employees. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems—thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former employees' PII/PHI. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII/PHI in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim. The Defendant is an Oregon corporation that fishes, processes, and distributes seafood products throughout the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, P.S., Esq. Jason T. Dennett, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Ave., Ste. 1700 Seattle, WA 98101-3147 Phone: (206) 682-5600 Email: kstephens@tousley.com jdennett@tousley.com PEOPLE CONCERN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Njoku Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- NGOZI NJOKU, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees; Plaintiff v. THE PEOPLE CONCERN, a California Nonprofit Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV31766 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., October 31, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to provide employment records; failure to pay overtime and double time; failure to provide rest and meal periods; failure to pay minimum wage; failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements; failure to pay reporting time wages; failure to pay split shift wages; failure to pay all wages earned on time; failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation; failure to pay all paid time off and vacation time owed upon separation; failure to reimburse necessary, business-related expenses; and failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job title of Case Manager from November 2018 to August 22, 2025. The People Concern operates a social services agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raffi Tapanian, Esq. TAPANIAN LAW, APC 611 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 1300 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 433-4977 Facsimile: (818) 484-2654 E-mail: raffi@tapanianlaw.com PETER PAN BUS LINES: Herrera Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc. The case is styled as Jonnathan Herrera, on behalf of Himself and all others similarly situated v. Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc., Case No. 2579CV00725 (Mass. Super. Ct., Hampden Cty., Oct. 30, 2025). The case type is stated as "Contract / Business." Peter Pan Bus Lines -- https://peterpanbus.com/ -- operates an intercity bus service in the Northeastern United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Omer Kremer, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW 20900 NE 30th Ave. Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (786) 289-9471 PG&E CORP: Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------- PG&E Corporation 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 September 30, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the motions to dismiss a consolidated securities action "In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation" with leave to amend by October 30, 2025. On September 30, 2022, the District Court issued an order staying "In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation" pending resolution of an ongoing bankruptcy proceeding. Accordingly, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California administratively closed the case, subject to a motion by the parties thereto to reopen the case. On August 21, 2024, the District Court entered an order setting a briefing schedule for renewed motions to dismiss a third amended complaint. Opening briefs were filed on October 24, 2024, opposition briefs were filed December 20, 2024, and reply briefs were filed January 31, 2025. In June 2018, a purported securities class action was filed in the District Court, naming PG&E Corporation and certain of its then-current and former officers as defendants, entitled "Jon Paul Moretti v. PG&E Corporation, et al." The complaint alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in various PG&E Corporation public disclosures related to, among other things, vegetation management and other issues connected to the 2017 Northern California wildfires. The complaints asserted claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and sought unspecified monetary relief, interest, attorneys’ fees and other costs. Said complaint identified a proposed class period of April 29, 2015, to June 8, 2018. On September 10, 2018, the court consolidated both cases, and the litigation is now denominated In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 18-03509. The court also appointed PERA as the lead plaintiff. PERA filed a consolidated amended complaint on November 9, 2018. Due to the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, the proceedings were automatically stayed as to PG&E Corporation and its parent Pacific Gas and Electric Company. On May 28, 2019, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities actions filed a third amended consolidated class action complaint, which includes the claims asserted in the previously filed actions and names as defendants PG&E Corporation, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, certain current and former officers and former directors, and the underwriters. On August 28, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court denied their request to extend the stay to the claims against the officer, director, and underwriter defendants. On October 4, 2019, the officer, director, and underwriter defendants filed motions to dismiss the third amended complaint, which motions are under submission with the District Court. On October 31, 2022, the Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico (PERA) filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's order staying the action. PERA filed its opening brief on March 6, 2023, the answering brief was filed on May 8, 2023, and PERA filed its reply on May 30, 2023. Oral argument was held on September 13, 2023. On May 3, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion vacating the stay in the "In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation" action, and remanding the case to the District Court with instructions for the District Court to weigh all the relevant interests in determining whether a stay is appropriate. The District Court has set a status conference for August 27, 2024, regarding mediation and a potential schedule for further briefing on the pending motions to dismiss. PG&E Corporation is an energy and gas company based in California. PHILADELPHIA, PA: Class Cert Bid Filing Due March 27, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MACKENZIE SMITH, et al., v. THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Case No. 2:22-cv-05092-JDW (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joshua D. Wolson entered an order amending the operative schedule as follows. 1. On or before Nov. 12, 2025, the Parties shall meet and confer to set aside dates to hold open for any remaining depositions before the close of discovery. The Parties shall submit a letter to the Court, via email to Chambers_of_Judge_Wolson@paed.uscourts.gov, that identifies the dates that will be set aside for these depositions. 2. Each Party shall serve any affirmative expert reports (meaning an expert report that the Party will use in its case-in-chief), if any, on or before Jan. 16, 2026. 3. Each Party shall serve any rebuttal expert reports (meaning an expert report that the Party will use to rebut an expert opinion from its opponent), if any, on or before Feb. 6, 2026. 4. The Parties shall complete all discovery by Feb. 20, 2026. 5. Motions for summary judgment and class certification, if any, shall be filed by March 27, 2026. Philadelphia, the largest city in Pennsylvania, displays many characteristics of a small town. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nJsW3E at no extra charge.[CC] PHILADELPHIA: Court Denies Police Officers' Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Christopher Flacco, Winton Singletary v. Danielle Outlaw, Charles Ramsey, Richard Ross, Jr., Kevin Bethel, Michael Zaccagni, Pedro Rodriguez, Albert D'Attilio, John Stanford, Jr., Candi Jones, City of Philadelphia, Civil Action No. 24-4374 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Matthew W. Kearney of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Two Philadelphia ranking police officers sued the City of Philadelphia, several of its Police Commissioners, and several of its human resources directors seeking overtime compensation during emergency periods over the past twelve years based on their interpretation of a Civil Service Commission regulation governing overtime pay during a period of emergency. The Plaintiffs sought, after the Court declares the City misinterprets the regulation, to order the City pay them overtime compensation for hours they recorded on daily activity sheets since 2013 as part of the daily recording of hours and then separate out the emergency from non-emergency time on a day-by-day basis for each officer. The Plaintiffs asked for permission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) to represent a class of 230 salaried ranking officers claiming they are all owed money for overtime work authorized by the then-Police Commissioner during periods of emergency since 2013. The Court afforded extensive discovery to allow the ranking officers and City to identify common issues and held extensive oral argument on the request for class treatment. Ranking Officers include Captains, Staff Inspectors, Inspectors, and Chief Inspectors. Their compensation is partially defined by regulations issued by the Civil Service Commission and by a Collective Bargaining Agreement. The Commission enacted Civil Service Regulation 31.06 fifteen years earlier detailing the emergency overtime pay for ranking officers in the police and fire departments and amended it in 1976. The Commission requires the City pay ranking officers overtime at the regular pay rate when their Commissioner authorizes them to work during an undefined period of emergency nature through Regulation 31.06. Ranking Officers record their hours on a daily basis using the Daily Attendance Report system. Police Department Directive 11.1 directs each overtime entry include the Ranking Officer's time in and out, total hours earned, an assignment code to show how the overtime was earned, and the reason for accrual in the Remarks section. Ranking Officers use Code 31, categorized as administrative, for all time worked beyond a Ranking Officer's regular schedule unless the Department assigns a special event-specific code. Ranking Officers use Code 31 for a wide range of work, including administrative duties, emergency work, meeting preparation, community events, trainings, and other incidents. The Commissioner and City's payroll professionals do not provide a specific code for emergency work. The Plaintiffs and eight additional Ranking Officers now report they spent an average of three to four hours per week beyond their forty-hour schedules performing emergency work across their employment as Ranking Officers. They perform many of the same types of emergency work, such as active-shooter incidents, assaults, mass shootings, robberies, fires, burglaries, riots, barricades, protests, looting events, serious medical emergencies, motor-vehicle accidents, drug-related incidents, and mental-health crises, but also describe distinct incidents. The confusion arises because Ranking Officers accrue compensatory time for all overtime hours—routine and emergency alike—under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which limits accrual to 1,300 hours. This accounting includes emergency period work covered by Regulation 31.06, which requires the City pay regular wages instead of compensatory time. Two Ranking Officers discovered Regulation 31.06 in February 2023 while researching their complaints about unpaid emergency work. The Plaintiffs did not become aware of Regulation 31.06 until Fall 2023. The Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of all Philadelphia Police Department Captains, Staff Inspectors, Inspectors, or Chief Inspectors who have performed unpaid emergency work beyond their scheduled hours since September 23, 2013. They estimated the putative class includes approximately 230 Ranking Officers because the City stated approximately 230 individuals have served as Ranking Officers from 2013 to present. The Court found the Plaintiffs have not satisfied the commonality prong under Rule 23(a)(2) or the predominance prong under Rule 23(b)(3). The Court stated the commonality and predominance requirements are closely linked. The key to commonality is not the raising of common questions—even in droves—but rather, the capacity of a class-wide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation. The Court explained the Plaintiffs' proposed common questions will not generate common answers to drive the resolution of the litigation. Their central question—whether Regulation 31.06 required the City, Commissioners, and Human Resources Directors to pay wages instead of compensatory time for emergency work performed beyond regular schedules—is not what they are seeking by way of damages in their case. The Plaintiffs will still need to go through the process of proving that each individual Ranking Officer worked unpaid emergency overtime and is thus entitled to wages, regardless of any common evidence about the Commissioners, Human Resources Directors, and City's common course of conduct equally denying the wages. The Court stated whether and to what extent Ranking Officers performed unpaid emergency work cannot be established through common evidence. The Court cannot determine who falls within the putative class, let alone whether a purportedly common question applies to them, without resolving the same individualized inquiries into what work each Ranking Officer performed, whether it qualified as emergency work under Regulation 31.06, and whether the City already compensated for it as part of the commingled emergency and other overtime. The Court found determining whether a particular entry qualifies as emergency work under Regulation 31.06 requires reviewing each Ranking Officer's reports, understanding the context of each event, and assessing whether it occurred during an emergency. The Plaintiffs will have to offer individualized proof they were actually performing emergency work during the various periods of overtime. Accordingly, the Court declined to certify a proposed class of ranking officers who self-report overtime without distinguishing emergency time over the last twelve years. The Court lacks a common answer as to how it could evaluate overtime compensation for 230 ranking officers without an individualized assessment of the exact hours they worked, at whose direction, for what purposes, and accounting for the compensation paid to them years ago for non-emergency time billed with other time under a collective bargaining agreement. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2gew9l from PacerMonitor.com PILOT TRAVEL: Pimentel Sues Over Unsolicited Calls -------------------------------------------------- Jan Carlos Pimentel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS LLC, Case No. 234344394 (Fla. 11th Judicial Cir. Ct., Miami-Cade Cty., Oct. 23, 2025), is brought against the Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited calls. To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in unsolicited calls to consumers that have registered their telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person entitled to bring this action under the TCPA, and a citizen and resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Defendant is an Illinois Limited Liability Company with its headquarters located in Knoxville, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell D. Hansen, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: mitchell@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com PRIMO BRANDS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Defrauding Investors ------------------------------------------------------------------ Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Stuart Rosenblum against Primo Brands Corporation ("Primo Brands" or the "Company") and three of the Company's senior executives and directors, including CFO David Hass, Director C. Dean Metropoulos, and former CEO Robbert Rietbroek (collectively, the "Defendants"). The action alleges that Defendants defrauded investors by making materially false and/or misleading statements and by failing to disclose materially adverse facts concerning the merger between Primo Water Corporation ("Primo Water") and an affiliate of BlueTriton Brands, Inc. ("BlueTriton Brands"), which together formed Primo Brands. The action is brought on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or acquired (i) the common stock of Primo Water between June 17, 2024 through November 8, 2024, inclusive, and/or (ii) the common stock of Primo Brands between November 11, 2024 through November 6, 2025, inclusive (collectively, the "Class Period"). The action, brought in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, is captioned Stuart Rosenblum v. Primo Brands Corp., et al., No. 3:25-cv-01902 (D. Conn.). Primo Brands, formed following the November 8, 2024 merger between Primo Water and BlueTriton Brands, is a branded beverage company that offers beverage products across a variety of formats, channels, and price points. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose key facts about the merger between Primo Water and BlueTriton Brands, including facts regarding the progress of the merger integration. Defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements that led investors to believe the merger would accelerate growth, generate transformative operational efficiencies, achieve meaningful synergies, and deliver strong financial results, and that the merger integration was proceeding "flawlessly." Investors began to learn the truth on August 7, 2025 when the Company announced its second quarter 2025 earnings, revealing that the merger had "led to disruptions in product supply, delivery, and service." In response to this disclosure, the price of the Company's common stock declined approximately 9%, from $26.41 per share on August 6, 2025 to $24.00 per share on August 7, 2025. The truth was fully revealed on November 6, 2025, when the Company stunned investors by slashing its full year 2025 net sales and adjusted EBITDA guidance and announcing the replacement of CEO Rietbroek. During a conference call held that day, newly appointed CEO Eric Foss admitted that Primo Brands "probably moved too far too fast on some of the various integration work streams" and that "[t]here's no doubt that speed impacted our ability to get through a lot of the warehouse closures and route realignment without disruption." Foss further revealed "customer services issues" as well as "integration issues related to the technology move over." On this news, the price of the Company's common stock declined more than 36%, from a close of $22.66 per share on November 5, 2025, to close at $14.46 per share on November 7, 2025. From the Company's Class Period stock price closing high of $35.63 per share on April 3, 2025, Primo Brands' stock price dropped $21.17 per share, or nearly 60%, erasing billions of dollars from the Company's market capitalization. Investors who purchased or acquired Primo Water's and/or Primo Brands' common stock during the Class Period are members of this proposed Class and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff, which is a court-appointed representative of the Class, by complying with the relevant provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"). See 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(2)(A)(i)-(iv). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court by no later than January 12, 2026. You do not need to seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to share in any possible recovery. You may also retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this action. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Vincent J. Pontrello at Grant & Eisenhofer at 646-722-8500, or via email at vpontrello@gelaw.com. Contacts Vincent J. Pontrello Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. Tel.: (646) 722-8500 vpontrello@gelaw.com [GN] S&H PROPERTY: McCauley Sues Over Failure to Remove Barriers ----------------------------------------------------------- Maryanne McCauley, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. S & H PROPERTY HOLDINGS, L.L.C. and PICASSO'S COFFEE LLC,, Case No. 4:25-cv-01627 (E.D. Mo., Nov. 3, 2025), is brought based upon Defendant's failure to remove physical barriers to access and violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the ADA's Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG"). On October 2, 2025, Plaintiff attempted to be a customer at Picasso's Coffee, a coffee shop. While this is the first time Plaintiff attempted to be a customer at Picasso's, Plaintiff often travels to Main St. in the City of St. Charles as she frequents restaurants and shops there often. Plaintiff has visited Main St. as a customer more than ten times in the previous two years. The Plaintiff intends to revisit the Property after the barriers to access detailed in this Complaint are removed and the Property is accessible again. The purpose of the revisit is to be a return customer to Picasso's, to determine if and when the Property is made accessible and to substantiate already existing standing for this lawsuit for Advocacy Purposes. The Plaintiff intends on revisiting the Property to purchase goods and/or services as a return customer as well as for Advocacy Purposes but does not intend to re-expose herself to the ongoing barriers to access and engage in a futile gesture of visiting the public accommodation known to Plaintiff to have numerous and continuing barriers to access, as such, Plaintiff is deterred from returning until the barriers to access are removed, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair for mobility purposes. S & H PROPERTY HOLDINGS, L.L.C. is a domestic limited liability corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq. THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L. 7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A Boca Raton, FL 33433 Phone: (561) 807-7388 Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com SAFECO INSURANCE: Dec. 25 Class Certification Hearing Vacated ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID GINSBERG, an individual; YVONNE DAVIS, an individual; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01778-GW-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wu entered an order regarding stipulation to vacate dates to allow for settlement discussions. The Hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on Dec. 15, 2025, is vacated. The post mediation status conference previously scheduled for Nov. 3, 2025, is vacated. A further status conference is set for Jan. 12, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. Safeco is an American insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YCIIxb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michelle M. Meyers, Esq. Lisa J. Nicholes, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP 1414 K Street, Suite 470 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 248-8478 Facsimile: (619) 255-1515 E-mail: mmeyers@singletonschreiber.com lnicholes@singletonschreiber.com The Defendants are represented by: Stephen Ma, Esq. James A. Morsch, Esq. SAUL EWING LLP 1888 Century Park East, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 255-6100 Facsimile: (310) 255-6200 E-mail: stephen.ma@saul.com SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Court Certifies Class of Arrested Persons ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.T., et al., v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-06524-LJC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Lisa Cisneros entered an order regarding motion for class certification. The Court certifies a class of plaintiffs under Rules 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defined as: "All persons who were arrested in the 3500 block of 17th Street, San Francisco, on July 8, 2023, in the mass arrest that occurred at approximately 8:40 PM." Whether Defendants had sufficient cause to conduct the mass arrest will be addressed for the class as a whole. For the limited purposes of considering claims based on conditions of confinement and assessing damages, the Court certifies the following subclasses: (1) individuals categorized by Defendants as girls under the age of eighteen at the time of their detention; (2) individuals categorized by Defendants as boys under the age of eighteen at the time of their detention; and (3) individuals categorized by Defendants as adults of the age eighteen or older at the time of their detention. For the limited purpose of considering injunctive relief, the class excludes any person who was charged with a crime connected to the events of the Dolores Hill Bomb after their release from the mass detention at issue. If Plaintiffs prevail on the merits of any claim, any such person may pursue injunctive relief individually following the conclusion of this class action. The Court appoints Plaintiffs J.T., C.L., L.R., S.H., and Jack Brundage as class representatives. The Court appoints Plaintiffs J.T., C.L., and L.R. as representatives of the subclass of minor girls; S.H. as representative of the subclass of minor boys; and Jack Brundage as representative of the subclass of adults. The Court appoints the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, the Community Law Office, and Bobbie Stein as counsel for the class and all subclasses. The Defendants are ordered to produce the unredacted police incident report showing all putative class members’ names no later than one week from the date of this Order if they have not done so already. The case concerns a mass arrest of more than one hundred people, many of them minors, in the aftermath of the July 2023 "Dolores Hill Bomb," an unsanctioned skateboarding event. Plaintiffs bring claims under state and federal law based on theories of arrest without probable cause and constitutionally impermissible conditions of confinement. The Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Fourth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, violation of section 52.1 of the California Civil Code (the Bane Act), common law false arrest and imprisonment, negligence, and declaratory and injunctive relief (including expungement of records). San Francisco is a commercial, financial, and cultural center of Northern California. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5oEjFM at no extra charge.[CC] SANAL INVESTMENTS: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ---------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. SANAL INVESTMENTS, LLC FKA SANAL INVESTMENTS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-25047-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 31, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA. Although over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendant has continued to discriminate against people who is disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial property and restaurant, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to discrimination at the commercial property, in violation of the ADA. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. SANAL INVESTMENTS, LLC FKA SANAL INVESTMENTS, INC. owned and operated a commercial property and conducted a substantial amount of business in that place of public accommodation in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com SANDOZ INC: Loses Summary Judgment Bid vs Connecticut ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, et al. v. SANDOZ, INC.; ACTAVIS HOLDCO US, INC.; ACTAVIS ELIZABETH LLC; ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00802-MPS (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Michael P. Shea entered a ruling on motion for summary judgment. The Defendants' motion for summary judgment, is denied except as to Kansas's claim for proprietary damages, which is dismissed. The Defendants, 36 pharmaceutical companies and executives, have moved for summary judgment on statutes of limitations and laches grounds against the Plaintiffs, the Attorneys General of most of the States and several U.S. territories, in this sprawling action alleging price fixing, market allocation, and bid rigging in the sale of generic drugs for skin ailments. The motion seeks summary judgment (a) on laches grounds with respect to the States’ federal claims for injunctive relief; and (b) on statute of limitations grounds with respect to most of the States’ state-law claims. The Plaintiffs include THE STATE OF ALASKA; THE STATE OF ARIZONA; THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THE STATE OF COLORADO; THE STATE OF DELAWARE; THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; THE STATE OF FLORIDA; THE STATE OF GEORGIA; THE TERRITORY OF GUAM; THE STATE OF HAWAII; THE STATE OF IDAHO; THE STATE OF ILLINOIS; THE STATE OF INDIANA; THE STATE OF IOWA; THE STATE OF KANSAS; THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; THE STATE OF LOUISIANA; THE STATE OF MAINE; THE STATE OF MARYLAND; THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; THE STATE OF MICHIGAN; THE STATE OF MINNESOTA; THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI; THE STATE OF MONTANA; THE STATE OF NEBRASKA; THE STATE OF NEVADA; THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE; THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO; THE STATE OF NEW YORK; THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA; THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLAND; THE STATE OF OHIO; THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA; THE STATE OF OREGON; THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO; THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; THE STATE OF TENNESSEE; THE STATE OF UTAH; THE STATE OF VERMONT; THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; THE STATE OF WASHINGTON; THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; THE STATE OF WISCONSIN; and U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS. The Defendants include AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC; ARA APRAHAMIAN; AUROBINDO PHARMA U.S.A., INC.; BAUSCH HEALTH AMERICAS, INC.; BAUSCH HEALTH US, LLC; MITCHELL BLASHINSKY; DOUGLAS BOOTHE; FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS INC., USA; JAMES (JIM) GRAUSO; GREENSTONE LLC; G&W LABORATORIES, INC.; WALTER KACZMAREK; ARMANDO KELLUM; LANNETT COMPANY, INC.; LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; MALLINCKRODT INC.; MALLINCKRODT LLC; MALLINCKRODT plc; MYLAN INC.; MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; KURT ORLOFSKI; MICHAEL PERFETTO; PERRIGO NEW YORK, INC.; PFIZER INC.; SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC.; TARO PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; TELIGENT, INC.; ERIKA VOGEL-BAYLOR; JOHN WESOLOWSKI; and WOCKHARDT USA LLC, Sandoz is a generic pharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y6gya0 at no extra charge.[CC] SAPP BROS: Andersen Sues Over Failure to Secure PII --------------------------------------------------- Ken Andersen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAPP BROS., INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-03222 (D. Neb., Oct. 31, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information, on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII" or "Private Information) and that was impacted in a cyber incident (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). On September 23, 2025, Defendant experienced a cyberattack on its system. Upon information and belief, the Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members was exposed as a result of the Data Breach. Defendant has yet to formally notify impacted individuals about the Data Breach. Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. 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 collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Defendant admits that information in its system was accessed by unauthorized individuals, though it provided little information regarding how the Data Breach occurred. The Defendant, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members provided their Private Information to Defendant. The Defendant operates full-service travel centers and sells and distributes petroleum across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com SEABOARD CORP: Continues to Defend Price Fixing Antitrust Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Seaboard Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the pork price fixing antitrust class suits in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. On June 28, 2018, twelve indirect purchasers of pork products filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (the "Minnesota District Court") against several pork processors, including Seaboard Foods LLC ("Seaboard Foods") and Agri Stats, Inc., a company described in the complaint as a data sharing service. Additional class action complaints with similar claims on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers were later filed in the Minnesota District Court, and additional actions by standalone plaintiffs (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) were filed in or transferred to the Minnesota District Court. The consolidated actions are styled In re Pork Antitrust Litigation. The complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in January 2009, the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of pork products in violation of U.S. antitrust laws by coordinating output and limiting production, allegedly facilitated by the exchange of non-public information about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand through Agri Stats, Inc. The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect purchasers also assert claims under various state laws, including state antitrust laws, unfair competition laws, consumer protection statutes, and common law unjust enrichment. The relief sought in the respective complaints includes treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees. On October 16, 2020, the Minnesota District Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaints. On March 3, 2023, the Minnesota District Court granted the Plaintiffs’ Motions to Certify the Classes with respect to all three classes. Additional standalone "direct action" plaintiffs filed similar actions in federal courts throughout the country, several of which named Seaboard Corporation as a defendant. Those actions filed in courts other than the District of Minnesota have been conditionally transferred to Minnesota for pretrial proceedings pursuant to an order by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. The states of New Mexico and Alaska filed civil cases in state court against substantially the same defendants, including Seaboard Foods and Seaboard Corporation, based on substantially similar allegations. On June 12, 2023, Seaboard Foods entered into a settlement agreement with the putative direct purchaser plaintiff class (the "DPP Class"). The settlement with the DPP Class does not cover the claims of (a) "direct action" plaintiffs ("DPPs") that opted-out of Seaboard's settlement with the DPP Class and are continuing direct actions; (b) other direct purchasers that opted-out of the settlement ("Other Opt-Outs") and may in the future file actions against Seaboard; (c) the Commercial and Industrial Indirect Purchaser Class (the "CIIP Class"); or (d) the End User Consumer Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff Class (the "EUCP Class"). Subsequent to the settlement with the DPP Class, Seaboard settled with some of the DPPs and Other Opt-Outs. Seaboard continues to litigate against the DPPs it has not settled with, but Seaboard will consider additional reasonable settlements where they are available. On June 18, 2024 and June 20, 2024, Seaboard Foods entered into settlement agreements with the CIIP Class and the EUCP Class. The settlement with the EUCP Class remains subject to court approval. Seaboard Foods entered into settlement agreements with the state of Alaska on August 7, 2024, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico on January 2, 2025 and the State of New Mexico on September 26, 2025. Seaboard believes that these settlements were in the best interests of Seaboard and its stakeholders in order to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation. On March 31, 2025, the Minnesota District Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Absent reconsideration or another change in circumstance, cases pending in the Minnesota District Court will proceed to trial and cases pending in other jurisdictions will be remanded to the courts in which the actions were brought. Seaboard has settled all actions originally brought in the Minnesota District Court. It is uncertain when the Minnesota District Court will remand the cases, including Seaboard's, pending in other jurisdictions or when trials of those cases will be scheduled. Seaboard believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims alleged in these matters and intends to vigorously defend any matters not resolved by settlement. However, the outcome of litigation is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties and, if unfavorable, could result in a material liability. Seaboard Corporation operates as a diverse agribusiness and transportation company worldwide. The company's Pork division produces and sells fresh pork products, such as loins, tenderloins, and ribs, as well as frozen pork products to further processors, food service operators, grocery stores, distributors, and retail outlets. Seaboard Corporation was founded in 1918 and is headquartered in Merriam, Kansas. SECURITAS SECURITY: Class Cert Filing in Greco Due July 17, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PERRY GRECO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01820-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Richard A. Jones entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Date Deadline to join additional parties: Dec. 31, 2025 Deadline for the Plaintiff to file motion July 17, 2026 for class certification: Deadline for the Defendants to file Aug. 21, 2026 opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: Deadline for the Plaintiff to file reply Sept. 4, 2026 to the Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: The Court will set further case scheduling deadlines after ruling on the motion for class certification. Should the Court deny the class certification motion, any party may request an expedited trial date. These are firm dates that can be changed only by order of the Court, not by agreement of counsel or the parties. Securitas is a provider of custom security & guarding solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9a823i at no extra charge.[CC] SELECT REHABILITATION: $2.5MM Settlement in McLaughlin Gets OK -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE MCLAUGHLIN, CRYSTAL VANDERVEEN, JUSTIN LEMBKE, SCOTT HARDT, Individually and behalf of all Others similarly situated, V. SELECT REHABILITATION LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) approving the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) settlement as fair, adequate, and reasonable; (2) approving the agreed upon and stipulated separate payment in resolution of the Plaintiffs' incurred attorneys' fees costs and expenses; (3) dismissing the case with prejudice and (4) as per Lynn's Foods, directing judgment for the Plaintiffs. On Jan. 14, 2022, Named Plaintiff McLaughlin, later joined by Vanderveen and Lembke, commenced this "off the clock" (OTC) overtime wage collective action under the FLSA on behalf of two groups (aka "classes"): a) all hourly paid Program Managers (aka Directors of Rehab) (PM); and b) all Therapists who primarily worked at skilled nursing facilities as well as at other outpatient facilities Select contracted with to provide therapy services to their residents or patients. The Plaintiffs contend that Select imposed unrealistic productivity requirements on Therapists, whereby often 90% or more of their recorded hours had to be billable, which caused them to routinely work "off-the-clock" to meet these productivity requirements. On March 3, 2023, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional Collective Action certification and issuance of notice to all those similarly situated in 2 groups: a) Therapists and b) all hourly paid Program Managers and directors of rehab (DE 163). The Settlement Agreement establishes a Qualified Settlement Fund of $2,500,000.00 ("Gross Settlement Amount") from which all the Plaintiffs’ individual settlement payments will be made from, including separately negotiated General Releases. Exactly $1,300,000 is being paid by Select to resolve the wage claims of the PM Plaintiffs, and $1,200,000 is paid to resolve the claims of the Therapist Plaintiffs. Select provides comprehensive therapy services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wypsCO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP 12610 Race Track Road, Suite #225, Tampa, FL 33626 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com mail@feldmanlegal.us SERVICEQUIK INC: Connor Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAY CONNOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SERVICEQUIK INC. d/b/a ZING BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE, ET AL., Case No. 1:24-cv-02286-CNS-NRN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion to extend deadline to seek class certification: Zing is an all-in-one business management software (SaaS) company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sXHz5I at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mount Carmel Avenue Glenside, PA 19038 Telephone: (215) 225-5529 Facsimile: (888) 329-0305 E-mail: a@perronglaw.com SMURFIT KAPPA: Melendez Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Marta Melendez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SMURFIT KAPPA NORTH AMERICA LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV27537 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for Central District of California on Oct. 31, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10508. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action: Failure to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked, including Minimum Wages and Overtime Wages, in Violation of Labor Code Sections 204, 1194 and 1197; Failure to Authorize or Permit Meal Periods in Violation of Labor Code Sections 512 and 226.7; Failure to Authorize or Permit Rest Periods in Violation of Labor Code Section 226.7; Failure to Timely Pay All Earned Wages and Final Paychecks Due at Separation of Employment in Violation of Labor Code Sections 201, 202, and 203; Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Wage Statements in Violation of Labor Code Section 226; Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses in Violation of Labor Code Section 2802; and Unfair Business Practices in Violation of Business and Professions Code Sections 17200.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Nicky Jatana, Esq. Sehreen Ladak, Esq. Kris Khodaverdian, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Email: Nicky.Jatana@jacksonlewis.com Sehreen.Ladak@jacksonlewis.com Kris.Khodaverdian@jacksonlewis.com - and - Scott P. Jang, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Phone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394.9401 Email: Scott.Jang@jacksonlewis.com SOCAL4 LLC: Meza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SOCAL4 LLC. The case is styled as Brandon A. Meza, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. SOCAL4 LLC also known as DOMINO'S PIZZA, Case No. 25STCV31846 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 30, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." SOCAL4 LLC also known as Domino's -- https://www.dominos.com/ -- offers delicious pizza, chicken & pasta, appetizers & desserts, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com SPRUCE POWER HOLDING: Caplan Sues Over Unfair Business Practice --------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Caplan, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SPRUCE POWER HOLDING CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; ENERGY SERVICE EXPERTS, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-at-01488 (E.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2025), is brought seeking an order enjoining the Defendants' from continuing to engage in this unfair business practice, to provide a full accounting to class members concerning the amounts that are owed for True-Up and Performance Guarantee payments, and to pay the Plaintiff and the Class all amounts that are owed under their PPAs. For most consumers, it is difficult to keep track of the amounts that might be owed from year to year for Performance Guarantee and True-Up payments. As a result, they rely on the solar energy provider to provide an accounting and ensure that the appropriate payments are issued. As alleged, Spruce engages in a business practice that is designed to take advantage of the difficulties consumers face keeping track of these payments. Specifically, instead of issuing timely accountings to customers showing the amount of electricity paid for and whether the solar panels met any performance guarantees, Spruce does nothing. It is only when consumers notice through their own research that a payment is owed and call to complain, that Spruce makes the payments that are owed. And, to make matters worse, Spruce has in place enormous barriers to make it difficult for consumers to obtain their payments. Consumers who notice they have not received their annual payment must spend hours on the phone with various call center employees and email inquiries go unreturned. Even after Spruce acknowledges that payments are owed, it often takes months to issue payments. This is all done with the hope that large numbers of consumers will either not notice that payments are owed under their contract or will simply give up trying to navigate Spruce's unresponsive customer service department, says the complaint. The Plaintiff entered into a PPA with Greenday Finance I, LLC with a term of 20 years. Spruce Power Holdings is an entity that provides solar energy and related services to more than 85,000 customers throughout the United States through what are known as Power Purchase Agreements ("PPAs").[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William A. Kershaw, Esq. Stuart C. Talley, Esq. Ian J. Barlow, Esq. KERSHAW TALLEY BARLOW PC 401 Watt Avenue Sacramento, CA 95864 Phone: (916) 779-7000 Facsimile: (916) 244-4829 Email: bill@ktblegal.com stuart@ktblegal.com ian@ktblegal.com ST MICHAEL GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cayo Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- BRAYAN IVAN GUAMAN CAYO; QUINTIL GARCIA RAMIREZ; WILLAN RICARDO CHAVEZ LIZANO; and WILLIAM STALYN GUAMAN CAYO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ST MICHAEL GROUP INC.; and SAINT MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE LLC d/b/a MARINO MAINTENANCE; and GERARDO MARINO, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-06115 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as construction workers. St Michael Group Inc. is engaged in the construction business, in New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 STARBUCKS CORPORATION: General Pretrial Management Order Entered ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMARI J. MOODY, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-08739-PAE-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows: All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Parties and counsel are cautioned: If and when a discovery schedule is issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference), or to extend a deadline, must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained. To receive limited-scope assistance from the project, parties may complete the clinic's intake form on their computer or phone at: https://www.citybarjusticecenter.org/projects/federal pro-se-legal-assistance-project/. If parties have questions regarding the form or they are unable to complete it, they may leave a voicemail at (212) 382-4794. A copy of a flyer with details about the project is attached to this Order. Starbucks is an American multinational coffeehouse chain. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q6h5gu at no extra charge.[CC] STELLA'S PIZZA: Norris Sues Over Discriminative Property -------------------------------------------------------- Namel Norris, and other similar situated v. STELLA'S PIZZA OF NY INC., a New York corporation, d/b/a STELLA'S PIZZA, and 108-110 9TH PARTNERS LLC, a New York limited liability company, Case No. 1:25-cv-09092 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 3, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs (including, but not limited to, court costs and expert fees) pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), and the new York State human rights law ("NYSHRL") as a result of the Defendants' discriminative Property. The Defendants have discriminated, and continue to discriminate, against the Plaintiff, and others who are similarly situated, by denying full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations at Defendants' Property, and by failing to remove architectural barriers, where such removal is readily achievable. The Plaintiff has been unable to, and continues to be unable to, enjoy full and equal safe access to, and the benefits of, all the accommodations and services offered at Defendants' Property in derogation of the ADA, the NYCHRL and the NYSHRL by failing to remove architectural barriers where such removal is readily achievable, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic and uses a wheelchair for mobility. STELLA'S PIZZA OF NY INC. is the lessee and/or operator of the real property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: B. Bradley Weitz, Esq. Robert J. Mirel, Esq. THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A. Bank of America Building 18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214 Aventura, Florida 33160 phone: (305) 949-7777 Facsimile: (305) 704-3877 Email: bbw@weitzfirm.com rjm@weitzfirm.com STORY COMPANIES: Cooley Sues Over Unpaid Compensation ----------------------------------------------------- Samantha Cooley, Monet Johnson, Ashley Wooten, and all others similarly situated v. Story Companies, LLC, d/b/a/ Story Cannabis; Canna Cuzzos, LLC; Premium Medicine of Maryland, LLC; Ohio Griz, LLC; Cannavitz Ventures, LLC; Case No. 2:25-cv-04062-MTL (D. Ariz., Ocrt. 29, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendants' actions in failing to compensate Plaintiffs. The Defendants have violated the provisions of the FLSA, resulting in damages to Plaintiffs, in the form of wrongfully withheld tips, incurred and incurring costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees. As a result of the failure to pay wages in accordance with the FLSA, Plaintiffs, as well as those similarly situated to Plaintiffs, have suffered monetary damages by failing to receive their lawfully owed tips during their tenure of employment with Defendants. In addition to the amount of unpaid tips owing to the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated to the Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs and those similarly situated are also entitled to an additional amount equal to the unpaid tips as liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as Budtenders in their retail dispensaries in various states, including but not limited to Arizona, Maryland, and Ohio. Story Cannabis is a medical and recreational cannabis company that owns and operates cannabis dispensaries in five states: Arizona, Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey, and Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel L. Bonnett, Esq. MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C. 4647 N 32nd Street, Suite 185 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Phone: (602) 240-6900 Email: dbonnett@martinbonnett.com - and - Molly A. Elkin, Esq. Sarah M. Block, Esq. Rachel B. Lerner, Esq. MCGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 833-8855 Email: mae@mselaborlaw.com smb@mselaborlaw.com rbl@mselaborlaw.com STRIDE INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises Stride, Inc., ("Stride" or the "Company") (NYSE: LRN) investors off a class action on behalf of investors that bought securities between October 22, 2024 and October 28, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Stride investors have until January 12, 2026 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/stride-inc-2. The Portnoy Law Firm can provide a complimentary case evaluation and discuss investors' options for pursuing claims to recover their losses. On September 14, 2025, news emerged that the Gallup-McKinley County Schools Board of Education had filed a complaint against Stride, alleging fraud, deceptive trade practices, systemic violations of law, and intentional and tortious misconduct, including inflating enrollment numbers by retaining "ghost students" on rolls to secure state funding per student and ignoring compliance requirements, including background checks and licensure laws for employees. On this news, Stride's stock price fell $18.60 per share, or 11.7%, to close at $139.76 per share September 15, 2025. Then, on October 28, 2025, Stride announced that "poor customer experience" had resulted in "higher withdrawal rates" and "lower conversion rates," and had driven students away. Stride estimated that the foregoing issues had let to approximately 10,000 to 15,000 fewer enrollments and, accordingly, said that the Company's outlook was "muted" compared to prior years. On this news, Stride's stock price fell $83.48 per share, or 54.37%, to close at $70.05 per share on October 29, 2025. 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 lesley@portnoylaw.com (310) 692-8883 www.portnoylaw.com [GN] SUGAR GRITS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Aldana Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ JOSHALEE ALDANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUGAR GRITS, LLC; TONY WESTMORELAND; STEPHANIE WESTMORELAND; and TANDEM RESTAURANT PARTNERS, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-03002 (W.D. Tenn., Nov. 3, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Aldana was employed by the Defendants as a server. Sugar Grits, LLC owns and operates a restaurant in Memphis, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip E. Oliphant, Esq. THE ROLWES EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM 1951 Mignon Avenue Memphis, TN 38107 Telephone: (901) 519-9135 Facsimile: (901) 979-2499 Email: poliphant@rolweslaw.com SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: Oster Ovens "Defective," Jones Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY CLARKE JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-13314 (N.D. Ill., October 30, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of State Consumer Fraud Acts and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's manufacturing, distribution, advertising, marketing, labeling, and sale of Oster-brand French Door Countertop Ovens. According to the complaint, the Ovens contain an identical defect in spring-loaded door mechanism. This defect can unexpectedly cause the door mechanism to snap shut and cause burn injuries to users. Sunbeam failed to disclose the existence of this defect to consumers prior to sale. As a result of the Defendant's omissions, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages. Sunbeam Products, Inc. is a manufacturer of electric home appliances, with a principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Email: mreese@reesellp.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce DeLeon, Suite 205 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com SUSI VILLA TPLAYGROUND: Norris Sues Over Discriminative Property ---------------------------------------------------------------- Namel Norris, and other similar situated v. SUSI VILLA TPLAYGROUND, INC., a New York corporation, d/b/a T LOUNGE COCKTAIL BAR, and 160 EAST 28TH & 134 NINTH LLC, a New York limited liability company, Case No. 1:25-cv-09091 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 3, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs (including, but not limited to, court costs and expert fees) pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), and the new York State human rights law ("NYSHRL") as a result of the Defendants' discriminative Property. The Defendants have discriminated, and continue to discriminate, against the Plaintiff, and others who are similarly situated, by denying full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations at Defendants' Property, and by failing to remove architectural barriers, where such removal is readily achievable. The Plaintiff has been unable to, and continues to be unable to, enjoy full and equal safe access to, and the benefits of, all the accommodations and services offered at Defendants' Property in derogation of the ADA, the NYCHRL and the NYSHRL by failing to remove architectural barriers where such removal is readily achievable, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic and uses a wheelchair for mobility. SUSI VILLA TPLAYGROUND, INC. is the lessee and/or operator of the real property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: B. Bradley Weitz, Esq. Robert J. Mirel, Esq. THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A. Bank of America Building 18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214 Aventura, Florida 33160 phone: (305) 949-7777 Facsimile: (305) 704-3877 Email: bbw@weitzfirm.com rjm@weitzfirm.com SWEEPSTEAKS LIMITED: Gardner Sues Over Sues Over Illegal Gambling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bailey Gardner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SWEEPSTEAKS LIMITED, Case No. 2:25-cv-00994 (D. Utah, Nov. 2, 2025), is brought to redress the Defendants' widespread violations of Utah's Gambling Act regarding the Defendant illegal gambling platform. While Defendants advertises and promotes the Stake 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 Stake Gambling Platform is actually a dangerous and plainly unlawful gambling enterprise. The Defendant sells digital "coins" to consumers on the Stake Gambling Platform – including consumers in Utah – and then immediately accepts 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 Stake Gambling Platform. Consumers who purchase and then wager "coins" on the Stake 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. Plaintiff and numerous other Utah residents have lost significant sums of their hard earned money placing wagers on the Stake Gambling Platform, and Defendant has in turn reaped enormous profits from the losses these people have sustained. Utah law clearly prohibits what Defendant has done. Utah's Gambling Act prohibits persons from operating or receiving revenue from "fringe gaming devices," "video gaming devices," or "gambling devices or records." The games offered on the Stake Gambling Platform constitute all three of these things, and Defendant has amassed significant revenue from Plaintiff and numerous others in Utah who have played them, says the complaint. The Plaintiff created an account on the Stake Gambling Platform. Sweepsteaks Limited is a private company organized and existing under the laws of Cyprus, with a place of business in Dallas, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot O. Jackson, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Phone: (305) 357-2107 Email: ejackson@hedinllp.com - and - David W. Scofield, Esq. PETERS | SCOFIELD A Professional Corporation 7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, UT 84093-6160 Phone: (801) 322-2002 Email: dws@psplawyers.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. GUCOVSCHI LAW FIRM, PLLC 140 BROADWAY, FL 46 New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 884-4230 Email: adrian@gr-firm.com SYNOPSYS INC: Kim Sues Over False and Misleading Statements ----------------------------------------------------------- Hyungjoon Kim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SYNOPSYS, INC., SASSINE GHAZI, and SHELAGH GLASER, Case No. 3:25-cv-09410 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2025), is brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Synopsys securities between December 4, 2024 and September 9, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") as a result of the Defendant's false and/or misleading statements. On September 9, 2025, after market hours, Synopsys released its third quarter 2025 financial results, revealing the Company's "IP business underperformed expectations." The Company reported quarterly revenue of $1.740 billion, missing its prior guidance of between $1.755 billion and $1.785 billion, and reported net income of $242.5 million, a 43% year-over-year decline from $425.9 million reported for third quarter 2024. Moreover, the Company reported its Design IP segment accounted for approximately 25% of revenue and came in at $426.6 million, a 7.7% decline year-over-year. Finally, management provided guidance which implied that Design IP revenues will decline by at least 5% on a full-year basis in fiscal 2025. On this news, Synopsys's stock price fell $216.59, or 35.8%, to close at $387.78 per share on September 10, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. The Defendants 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: the extent to which the Company's increased focus on artificial intelligence customers, which require additional customization, was deteriorating the economics of its Design IP business; that, as a result, "certain road map and resource decisions" were unlikely to "yield their intended results;" that the foregoing had a material negative impact on financial results; and that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Synopsys securities during the Class Period. Synopsys provides electronic design automation software products used to design and test integrated circuits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 Email: rprongay@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com prajesh@glancylaw.com TF GROUP LLC: Dennery Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against TF Group, LLC. The case is styled as Alex Dennery, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TF Group, LLC, a California company, Case No. 2:25-cv-10524 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 2, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Total Foodservice Group (TFG) -- https://tfgroupllc.com/ -- is a collection of experts from various industry backgrounds with the common goal of providing personable and masterful customer service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 237 South Dixie Hwy 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com TOYOTA ARENA: Phoenix Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY ROBERT PHOENIX and ADRIENNE GENE VINCENT PHOENIX, et al., v. TOYOTA ARENA, LLC, a California limited liability company; CITY OF ONTARIO; and DOES 1-10, et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-02403-JWH-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Dec. 5, 2025, will move the Court for an Order granting their request to continue deadlines related to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, presently due on Nov. 21, 2025. On Dec. 3, 2022, Mr. Phoenix and his wife, Plaintiff Adrienne Gene Vincent Phoenix, attended a concert at Toyota Arena in Ontario, California with their three sons. The Plaintiffs allege they encountered numerous physical and policy barriers that impeded Mr. Phoenix's ability to access the Arena and forced Ms. Phoenix to help her husband navigate around these barriers. The Plaintiffs' alleged barriers include ticketing problems, a lack of accessible parking, inadequate and inferior accessible seating, and a lack of training for Arena employees and contractors regarding the ADA and California disability rights laws. The Plaintiff is a mobility disabled wheelchair user. Toyota is the management company for the Toyota Arena, a large, modern multi-purpose indoor arena located in Ontario, California. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x2DNET at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Catherine Cabalo, Esq. Khushpreet Mehton, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 766-3592 Facsimile: (415) 840-9435 E-mail: ccabalo@peifferwolf.com kmehton@peifferwolf.com - and - Irakli Karbelashvili, Esq. ALLACCESS LAW GROUP 1400 Coleman Avenue, Suite F28 Santa Clara, CA 95050 Telephone: (408) 295-0137 Facsimile: (408) 295-0142 E-mail: irakli@allaccesslawgroup.com - and - Adam B. Wolf, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 866-9662 Facsimile: (415) 840-9435 E-mail: awolf@peifferwolf.com - and - Aaron Clefton, Esq. CLEFTON DISABILITY LAW 2601 Blanding Ave., Suite C #336 Alameda, CA 94501 Telephone: (510) 832-5001 E-mail: aaron@cleftonlaw.com TOYOTA ARENA: Phoenix Seeks to Advance Hearing Date on Class Cert ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY ROBERT PHOENIX and ADRIENNE GENE VINCENT PHOENIX, et al., v. TOYOTA ARENA, LLC, a California limited liability company; CITY OF ONTARIO; SMG, a Pennsylvania General Partnership; and DOES 1-10, et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-02403-JWH-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting notice of ex parte and ex parte application to advance the hearing date of the Plaintiffs' motion requesting continuance of class certification briefing schedule: The Plaintiffs request that they be permitted to have their Motion to Continue be heard on or before Nov. 14, 2025, or a date in advance of Plaintiffs' Nov. 21, 2025, filing deadline for their class certification motion. The Plaintiffs apply to this Court, ex parte, for the following relief: that the Plaintiffs be permitted to have their motion requesting continuance of class certification briefing schedule (Motion to Continue), which will be filed contemporaneously with this Ex Parte Application, to be heard on or before Nov. 21, 2025. The Motion to Continue is currently set to be heard on Dec. 5, 2025, which is after the current deadline for the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. This Ex Parte Application is made pursuant to Local Rules 7-19 and 16-14 upon the grounds that the Motion to Continue will not be heard until the deadline for Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs and the proposed classes would suffer irreparable harm and be extremely disadvantaged if this Ex Parte Application is not granted. The Plaintiffs are entitled to add class representatives if the Court agrees. And if Mr. Dunston and Ms. Garay are added, Defendants will need adequate time to conduct discovery to prepare for their opposition to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion. The Plaintiffs are also entitled to complete their deposition of the City on topics relevant to their class certification motion. The Plaintiffs have acted as quickly as possible to bring these issues to the Defendants' and the Court's attention, and the Defendants will not be prejudiced if the briefing schedule is modified to allow them time to conduct discovery before the class certification briefing schedule begins. Toyota is the management company for the Toyota Arena, a large, modern multi-purpose indoor arena located in Ontario, California. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yZiWlq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Catherine Cabalo, Esq. Khushpreet Mehton, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 766-3592 Facsimile: (415) 840-9435 E-mail: ccabalo@peifferwolf.com kmehton@peifferwolf.com - and - Irakli Karbelashvili, Esq. ALLACCESS LAW GROUP 1400 Coleman Avenue, Suite F28 Santa Clara, CA 95050 Telephone: (408) 295-0137 Facsimile: (408) 295-0142 E-mail: irakli@allaccesslawgroup.com - and - Adam B. Wolf, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 866-9662 Facsimile: (415) 840-9435 E-mail: awolf@peifferwolf.com - and - Aaron Clefton, Esq. CLEFTON DISABILITY LAW 2601 Blanding Ave., Suite C #336 Alameda, CA 94501 Telephone: (510) 832-5001 E-mail: aaron@cleftonlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Frank J. Lizarraga Jr., Esq. LIZARRAGA LAW FIRM APC 3401 Centre Lake Drive, Ste. 600 Ontario, CA 91761 E-mail: frank@lizarragalaw.com - and - Stephen G. Larson, Esq. Steven E. Bledsoe, Esq. Paul A. Rigali, Esq. Andrew E. Calderón, Esq. Anahit Sargsyan, Esq. LARSON LLP 555 South Flower Street, 30th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 E-mail: slarson@larsonllp.com prigali@larsonllp.com sbledsoe@larsonllp.com acalderon@larsonllp.com asargsyan@larsonllp.com TYSON FOODS: Lucien Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- Cesar Lucien, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TYSON FOODS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-09075 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2025), is brought for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), arising from Defendant's failure to ensure that its ecommerce Website, www.tysonfoods.com is accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website—and therefore its denial of the goods, services, and employment opportunities offered thereby—constitutes a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA. The Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen reading software to read website content while using a computer or mobile device. Tyson Foods, Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas, owns and operates the website www.tysonfoods.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schonfeld, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 825 Third Avenue, Suite 2100 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 656-1889 Email: rschonfeld@employeejustice.com UNITED PARKS: Faces Class Suit Over "Bait-and-Switch" Tactics ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Matthew Beeman filed a class action lawsuit against United Parks & Resorts Inc., doing business as SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment Inc. Why: Beeman claims SeaWorld uses "bait-and-switch" tactics to mislead consumers about the true price of tickets to its theme parks. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Florida federal court. A new class action lawsuit accuses SeaWorld of using "bait-and-switch" tactics to mislead consumers about the true price of tickets to its theme parks. Plaintiff Matthew Beeman claims SeaWorld lures consumers into paying higher prices for tickets by advertising a deceptively low initial price and only revealing an undisclosed and unavoidable "service fee" at the final checkout screen. "Consumers cannot complete a ticket purchase without paying this hidden fee," the SeaWorld class action lawsuit says. Beeman argues SeaWorld unlawfully advertises and displays ticket prices on its websites without including all mandatory fees or charges that customers must ultimately pay. SeaWorld's alleged "bait-and-switch" tactics violate Virginia's All-In Pricing Law and the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, Beeman claims. Class action: SeaWorld's alleged 'bait-and-switch' tactics designed to increase consumer commitment Beeman argues SeaWorld conceals its mandatory fees until after consumers have invested substantial time selecting tickets and have committed to purchasing based on the incomplete, deceptively low advertised price. "Each stage of Defendant's multi-step checkout process is designed to increase consumer commitment so that, by the time the hidden fees are revealed, consumers -- having already expended time and effort -- are more likely to complete the transaction," the SeaWorld class action lawsuit says. Beeman claims SeaWorld's alleged "bait-and-switch" tactics force consumers to pay upward of 20 percent more than when the actual price is disclosed upfront. Beeman is seeking to represent a class of consumers who purchased tickets to Busch Gardens Williamsburg or Water Country USA on a ticketing website operated by SeaWorld where all mandatory fees were not included in the initially displayed or advertised price of the ticket. He demands a jury trial and requests declaratory relief and an award of statutory damages of $500 per violation, or $1,000 per willful violation, plus attorneys' fees and costs. Another theme park recently faced a similar class action lawsuit when a Lake Compounce guest sued Festival Fun Parks for failing to disclose its service fees until the final stages of the ticket purchase process. The plaintiff is represented by Arun G. Ravindran of Ravindran Law Firm PLLC. The SeaWorld class action lawsuit is Beeman v. United Parks & Resorts Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-01931, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. [GN] UNITED STATES: Bostock Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- DREW BOSTOCK, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to dismiss and granting the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Ramon Rodriguez Vazquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Drew Bostock, Seattle Field Office Director, Enforcement and Removal Operations, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-05240-TMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. This case arises from a practice by the Tacoma Immigration Court of interpreting the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") to require detention without the possibility of bond for noncitizens who entered the United States without inspection, even if they have lived here for years and can prove they present neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. On Apr. 24, 2025, the Court granted named Plaintiff Ramon Rodriguez Vazquez's individual motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that the Tacoma Immigration Court's practice was likely illegal. Although the Defendants opposed granting injunctive relief, they made no substantive arguments at the time regarding the applicable detention authority for noncitizens such as Rodriguez who were apprehended while residing in the United States. One week later, the Court granted in part and denied in part Rodriguez's class certification motion filed alongside his motion for preliminary injunction. The Court certified two classes of noncitizens. The first class seeks a declaration that the Tacoma Immigration Judges' ("IJs") bond denial policy is unlawful under the INA (the "Bond Denial Class"). The second class seeks a declaration that prolonged detention without timely appellate adjudication of an IJ's bond ruling violates the Due Process Clause (the "Bond Appeal Class"). On June 2, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment as to Bond Denial Class. On June 6, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On Sept. 30, 2025, Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright entered an Order granting the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Summary judgment is granted to the Bond Denial Class on the claims that their detention under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1225(b)(2) is unlawful. The Court declares that Bond Denial Class members are detained under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1226(a) and are not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1225(b)(2). The Court further declares that the Tacoma Immigration Courts practice of denying bond to Bond Denial Class members on the basis of Sec. 1225(b)(2) violates the Immigration and Nationality Act. The appellate case is entitled Rodriguez Vazquez v. Bostock, et al., Case No. 25-6842, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 29, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 3, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on November 12, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on December 11, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on January 20, 2026; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on February 19, 2026. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee RAMON RODRIGUEZ VAZQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Aaron Korthuis, Esq. Glenda M. Aldana Madrid, Esq. Leila Kang, Esq. Matt Adams, Esq. NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 2nd Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Defendants-Appellants DREW BOSTOCK, Seattle Field Office Director, Enforcement and Removal Operations, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), et al. are represented by: Brett Shumate, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530 - and - Samuel P. Go, Esq. Victor Manuel Mercado-Santana, Esq. Michael Ross, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 UNITED STATES: Chen Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 2nd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- HAIYAN CHEN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Haiyan Chen, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BROOKE L. ROLLINS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-1440, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In this complaint, the Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants' policy of prohibiting replacement of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ("SNAP") benefits stolen through a practice known as "skimming" (a form of electronic theft) is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). On Dec. 18, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. On Mar. 17, 2025, the Defendants filed a cross motion for summary judgment. On Aug. 28, 2025, Judge Tammi M. Hellwig entered an Order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. In the Court's view, it is unfortunate that victims of a sophisticated theft of federally-provided benefits, benefits necessary to put food on their tables through a program long established by the Congress, cannot be reimbursed for that theft with federal funds even when the skimming has been verified. Each Plaintiff in this lawsuit lost between a few hundred and a few thousand dollars to skimming. While not a king's ransom to many New Yorkers, the Court does not question that the loss was significant to them and that similar, significant losses have been sustained by other similarly situated SNAP benefits recipients. Despite the Court's conclusion that the Defendants' policy does not violate the APA, it is the Court's sincere hope that the Congress or the USDA will devise a better solution to the skimming problem. The appellate case is entitled Chen v. Vilsack, Case No. 25-2732, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on October 29, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants HAIYAN CHEN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Mary Eaton, Esq. FRESHFIELDS US LLP 3 World Trade Center 175 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Defendants-Appellees BROOKE L. ROLLINS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), et al. are represented by: Barbara D. Underwood, Esq. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 US BANK TRUST: Pridgen Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against US Bank Trust National Association, et al. The case is styled as Irene J. Pridgen, and all others similarly situated v. US Bank Trust National Association, As Owner; Trustee for RCAF Acquisition Trust; Melisa Manganelli; Case No. 8:25-cv-03003-KKM-AAS (M.D. Fla., Oct. 31, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. US Bank Trust NA -- https://www.usbank.com/index.html -- was founded in 1903. The company's line of business includes fiduciary business, but not regularly engaged in deposit banking.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. USAA CASUALTY: Must Oppose Jennings Class Cert Bid by Dec. 8 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARYN JENNINGS and TRICIA HARDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-06171-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge David Estudillo entered an order granting stipulated motion and order to amend briefing deadlines: Event Deadline The Plaintiffs' opposition to the Dec. 15, 2025 Defendants' MSJ The Defendants' reply in support of the Jan. 23, 2026 Defendants' MSJ: The Defendants' opposition to the Dec. 8, 2025 Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: The Plaintiffs to complete depositions of Feb. 2, 2026 The Defendants' experts, if any: The Plaintiffs' reply in support of April 13, 2026 their motion for class certification: On Aug. 4, 2025, the Plaintiffs Caryn Jennings and Tricia Harder filed a Motion for Class Certification. On Oct. 23, 2025, USAA Casualty and USAA General Indemnity filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. USAA is a provider of insurance, investments and banking products. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=imVV0X at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason T. Dennett, Esq. Cecily C. Jordan, Esq. Joan M. Pradhan, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: jdennett@tousley.com cjordan@tousley.com jpradhan@tousley.com - and - Franklin D. Azar, Esq. Michael D. Murphy, Esq. Timothy L. Foster, Esq. Dezarae LaCrue, Esq. Brian Hanlin, Esq. FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 14426 East Evans Avenue Aurora, CO 80014 Telephone: (303) 757-3300 Facsimile: (720) 213-5131 E-mail: azarf@fdazar.com murphym@fdazar.com fostert@fdazar.com lacrued@fdazar.com hanlinb@fdazar.com The Defendants are represented by: Kimberly A. Reppart, Esq. FORSBERG & UMLAUF, P.S. 901 Fifth Ave., Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98164 Telephone: (206) 689-8500 E-mail: kreppart@foum.law - and - Jay Williams, Esq. Paula Ketcham, Esq. Robert Boley, Esq. Sarah Oligmueller, Esq. ARENT FOX SCHIFF, LLP 233 S. Wacker, Ste. 7100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 258-5500 E-mail: jay.williams@afslaw.com paula.ketcham@afslaw.com robert.boley@afslaw.com sarah.oligmueller@afslaw.com VISTA HM: Scroggins Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Scroggins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VISTA HM, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03492 (D. Colo., Nov. 3, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and costs under The Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); the Colorado Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA"), as implemented by the applicable Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards ("COMPS") Order; and the Colorado Wage Claim Act ("CWCA") and all other available relief allowed by law. The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated current and former employees the applicable Federal and Colorado minimum wages pursuant to a uniform, companywide policy and practice, for all hours worked in multiple pay periods, over the 3 years preceding the filing of this class action complaint, in willful violation of its obligations under the FLSA, CMWA, as implemented by the applicable COMPS Orders, and CWCA., says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as an automobile broker for Defendant from February 2024 through June 30, 2025. The Defendant operates an automotive brokerage business in Centennial and Colorado Springs, Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Mark Baird Beth Doherty Quinn BAIRD QUINN LLC 2036 East 17th Avenue Denver, CO 80206 Phone: 303.813.4500 Email: jmb@bairdquinn.com bdq@bairdquinn.com VLNYC LLC: Norris Sues Over Discriminative Property --------------------------------------------------- Namel Norris, and other similar situated v. VLNYC LLC, a New York limited liability company, d/b/a MULEH, and NINTH AVENUE APARTMENT CORP., a New York corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-09094 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 3, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs (including, but not limited to, court costs and expert fees) pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), and the new York State human rights law ("NYSHRL") as a result of the Defendants' discriminative Property. The Defendants have discriminated, and continue to discriminate, against the Plaintiff, and others who are similarly situated, by denying full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations at Defendants' Property, and by failing to remove architectural barriers, where such removal is readily achievable. The Plaintiff has been unable to, and continues to be unable to, enjoy full and equal safe access to, and the benefits of, all the accommodations and services offered at Defendants' Property in derogation of the ADA, the NYCHRL and the NYSHRL by failing to remove architectural barriers where such removal is readily achievable, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic and uses a wheelchair for mobility. VLNYC LLC is the lessee and/or operator of the real property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: B. Bradley Weitz, Esq. Robert J. Mirel, Esq. THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A. Bank of America Building 18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214 Aventura, Florida 33160 phone: (305) 949-7777 Facsimile: (305) 704-3877 Email: bbw@weitzfirm.com rjm@weitzfirm.com VONS CO: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Jan. 14, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERTO SANDOVAL CARRILLO, v. THE VONS COMPANIES, INC., et al., Case No. 8:25-cv-00191-SRM-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Serena Murillo entered an order granting the Plaintiff's ex parte application to continue class discovery deadline and class certification deadlines by six weeks. Event Date Class Certification – Discovery Cut-off: Dec. 12, 2025 Class Certification – Motion for Class Jan. 14, 2026 Certification Deadline: Class Certification – Opposition Deadline: Feb. 18, 2026 Class Certification – Reply Deadline: Mar. 25, 2026 Class Certification Motion Hearing: Apr. 15, 2026 All other dates and deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order, remain unchanged. The Court finds that Plaintiff's request to extend the discovery deadline is procedural and could not be heard through a regularly noticed motion. Following discovery disputes, the Parties scheduled an Informal Discovery Conference with Judge Karen E. Scott and agreed to extend the class discovery deadline from October 1, 2025, to October 31, 2025. On Sept. 18, 2025, the Parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Continue Class Discovery deadline from October 1, 2025, to October 31, 2025, which the Court granted on September 26, 2028. On September 29, 2025, the Parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference before Judge Scott. On Oct. 2, 2025, Defendant The Vons Companies, Inc. was ordered to provide certain supplemental responses and document production relating to class discovery by October 10, 2025. Vons operates supermarkets, food, and drug combination retail stores. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RzuD8A at no extra charge.[CC] WAL-MART STORES: Certifies Gender Discrimination Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Roberto Ceniceros, writing for Business Insurance, reports that last week's federal court ruling granting class-action status to a suit charging Wal-Mart Stores Inc. with gender discrimination could significantly increase the liability of companies facing bias suits, employment lawyers say. If the decision stands, employers found guilty in discrimination cases could face huge punitive damages awards, they say. The decision by U.S. District Judge Martin J. Jenkins in San Francisco to certify the case as a class action ignores previous decisions on punitive damages and is only the first stage of what is likely to be a protracted case, the attorneys say. Judge Jenkins' 84-page ruling states that plaintiffs suing Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart are entitled to injunctive relief and a jury award for punitive damages if they prove their allegations. "That is what is getting general counsels', risk mangers' and business executives' attention," said Gerald L. Maatman Jr., an employment lawyer at Seyfarth Shaw in Chicago. In the suit, which was filed in 2001, a group of current and former female employees of Wal-Mart charge that the retailer unfairly denied them promotions, compensation and job assignments because of their gender. The suit states that while more than 72% of the hourly sales employees at Wal-Mart are women, female employees hold only one-third of management positions in the company. In addition, only 10% of Wal-Mart's store managers and about 4% of its district managers are women, the suit notes. Among the company's 20 top competitors, women hold more than 56% of management positions, even though the percentage of female hourly workers at these companies is comparable to that at Wal-Mart, the suit states. According to court papers, the class includes 1.5 million women employed over the past five years at 3,400 stores, "thus dwarfing other employment discrimination cases that have come before." A spokeswoman for Wal-Mart said in a statement that last week's class certification by Judge Jenkins has "absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the case" and that the company plans to appeal the decision. The decision ignores other court rulings on punitive damages in employment practices cases, said Mr. Maatman. Past federal appeals court decisions have severely restricted the ability of plaintiffs in class action suits to collect punitive damages in such cases, he said. One appeals court ruled that to collect punitive damages, each individual plaintiff in a class must prove he or she suffered injury and is entitled to compensatory damages. In addition, another appeals court ruled that plaintiffs cannot win compensatory and punitive damages if they are seeking injunctive relief, Mr. Maatman said. And other class action suits seeking punitive damages are pending in various courts, he said. "This issue is being fought out in various courtrooms throughout the United States," he said. "So, obviously, a case as famous-or as closely watched-as Wal-Mart has raised the stakes." The claim for punitive damages should disqualify the case to be certified as a class action, said D. Gregory Valenza, an employment defense expert at Jackson Lewis L.L.P. in San Francisco. "If it were me, I would be looking to fight punitive damages," Mr. Valenza added. "If the class is going to stay certified, I would want punitive damages to be out of the class." He also noted that the ruling is a preliminary decision and case facts still must be presented for the plaintiffs to eventually win punitive damages. "It's a very early decision in a big, winding case," Mr. Valenza said. While defense attorneys contend that Wal-Mart has legal precedent on its side, at least one federal appeals court has ruled that plaintiffs can win punitive damages in an employment-related class action, said Richard T. Seymour, a plaintiffs attorney at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein L.L.P. in Washington. "Businesses are fighting that, and businesses are losing," Mr. Seymour said. [GN] WASATCH MEN'S: Faces Suit Over Closure of Clinic Without Warning ---------------------------------------------------------------- Meg Gatto, writing for FOX8Live, reports that the owners of a Metairie men's clinic that closed without warning now face a class action lawsuit. The FOX 8 Defenders first uncovered complaints after the shuttered clinic left patients with large loans and treatments they say never worked. Now, an Arkansas attorney who saw our investigations says he's fighting for men across the country. More than two years after Spring View Medical Clinic abruptly shut down, an Arkansas man -- one of its former patients -- and his attorney are seeking to hold the clinic's owners accountable. "Undoubtedly, this was a fraud. It was a clear fraud," attorney Scott Poynter said. Poynter filed a class action lawsuit in the Arkansas state court against Wasatch Men's Group, the company behind Spring View and about 40 similar clinics across the country. The lawsuit alleges Wasatch ran an illegal scheme, marketing what it calls "snake oil" treatments to men for erectile dysfunction. "Our client went to the South Lake clinic in Little Rock, Arkansas, because he had erectile dysfunction," Poynter said. "This particular clinic was heavily marketed on television, on the radio, in print advertising, all over Little Rock." Commercials for the clinic also aired in the New Orleans area, promoting Spring View Medical Clinic in Metairie. Over the two years FOX 8 Defenders reported on Spring View, dozens of local men came forward with similar stories. "I kept telling them after the 6th treatment that I wasn't feeling anything," one man told us. Another, who didn't want to be identified, said, "After the 3rd treatment, I called, no answer, I must've called, I don't know how many times. Then I went down there, when I went down there, the office was closed." Most of the men interviewed signed up for loans to pay for treatment with acoustic wave therapy. None reported that the treatment worked. The clinic abruptly closed in June 2023, leaving them with outstanding bills and unfinished care. "When we hear the same story over and over and over, that lends credibility to the story," Poynter said. The lawsuit claims Wasatch Men's Group partnered with financing platforms Momnt Technologies and Primis Bank to carry out the alleged scheme. "At all Wasatch clinics, whether you were at an Arkansas clinic or a Louisiana clinic or a Mississippi clinic, there was a traveling sales team for Wasatch that went to each one of these clinics and were motivated to have the patients sign up for thousands and thousands of dollars of medical financing loans," Poynter said. According to the lawsuit, financing for Wasatch patients across 42 clinics totaled more than $50 million, with interest rates of at least 18%. In a separate federal case in 2022, court documents show that when Momnt sued Wasatch for breach of contract, Rob Duncan, one of the owners, said the company had run out of money. "I definitely wonder where is the money," one local man said. A former Spring View patient told us he signed up for a loan through Momnt Technologies to pay for his treatment. But when the clinic closed without notice, he said he tried reaching out. "I called the finance company and they told me they were working on something to help people recoup money from treatment that hadn't been delivered," he said. "In the meantime, she said you need to keep making these payments because if not, this is going to count against your credit report, and I was like, I can't have that happen." He said he never heard back from Momnt. Fearing damage to his credit, he paid off the full $6,000 loan for 12 treatments -- though he said he received only four. The treatments, he said, didn't work. "The promises were false, false promises," the man told us. When asked if he felt deceived, he replied, "Oh, absolutely. Absolutely." "I feel like, even if I don't recoup my money, for people who could be scammed in the future, it's an awareness thing -- making people aware that this is happening," he said. Through public records, FOX 8 discovered more than 75 consumer complaints filed with attorneys general in at least 15 states involving Wasatch clinics. Poynter says recovering money for patients remains a challenge -- especially because the owners are now difficult to locate. "The problem that we have, not only has this Wasatch gone away, they haven't even filed bankruptcy -- they just went away. The members or the owners of that business have become invisible," Poynter said. FOX 8 also struggled to reach the owners. The only one we contacted was Rob Duncan, who texted us in 2023, "We are pursuing all options that will enable us to help the client." Duncan did not respond to follow-up questions about how that would happen. Poynter hopes the class-action lawsuit will help provide answers. "Our clients and the people who were patients at all of these clinics deserve some remedy from this problem, no doubt about it," Poynter said. In the meantime, attorneys general in several states, including Louisiana, continue to investigate. With the class action suit moving through the court system, Poynter says the case is far from over. "I'm hoping for justice for everyone who was scammed," a former Spring View patient told us. The Arkansas Attorney General's Office said it helped 20 former patients of South Lake Medical Clinic get their loans waived after filing complaints with the office. FOX 8 Defenders continue to hear from local men who still owe money for treatments at Spring View and are unsure what steps to take. In a statement, Momnt Technologies denied all allegations from the complaint. The company said it does not comment on specific merchants or consumers, but added: "Momnt fulfills each of its obligations to consumers and is committed to resolving legitimate complaints and disputes as they arise. We take each dispute seriously and investigate each complaint thoroughly in compliance with state and federal laws." Primis Bank has not responded to our request for comment on the class action lawsuit. [GN] WESTGATE RESORTS: Moore Seeks OK of Renewed Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARILYN MOORE, RYAN and LAURA SPADO, ELLEN GILLILAND, and GEROLD GALLEGOS and DEBORAH CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WESTGATE RESORTS, LTD., L.P. a/k/a WESTGATE RESORTS, LTD., CENTRAL FLORIDA INVESTMENTS, INC., WESTGATE RESORTS, INC., WESTGATE MARKETING, LLC, and CFI RESORTS MANAGEMENT, INC., (JRG1), Case No. 3:18-cv-00410-DCLC-JEM (E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order grating renewed motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, Plaintiffs move for an order certifying a class as to Plaintiffs' claims for: (1) violation of the Tennessee Time-Share Act; (2) breach of contract (implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing); and (3) civil conspiracy. For each of these claims, Plaintiffs move to certify the following class: "All residents of the United States and its territories who purchased from Westgate an All Season "floating use plan" vacation timeshare property at the Westgate Smoky Mountain Resort at Gatlinburg from Sept. 25, 2012 through Jan. 31, 2018." Excluded from the proposed class are: (a) the Defendants, any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest, and the Defendants' legal representatives, officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, affiliates, assigns, and successors; and (b) Judges assigned to this case and any members of their immediate families or staffs." In the alternative, Plaintiffs move for an order certifying two subclasses pursuant to Rule 23(c)(5), defined as: Tennessee Time-Share Act and Civil Conspiracy Subclass: "All residents of the United States and its territories who purchased from Westgate an All Season "floating use plan" vacation timeshare property at the Westgate Smoky Mountain Resort at Gatlinburg from Sept. 25, 2014 through Jan. 31, 2018." Breach of Contract (Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) and Civil Conspiracy Subclass: "All residents of the United States and its territories who purchased from Westgate an All Season "floating use plan" vacation timeshare property at the Westgate Smoky Mountain Resort at Gatlinburg from Sept. 25, 2012 through Jan. 31, 2018." The Plaintiffs further move the Court to appoint Marilyn Moore1, Ellen Gilliland, and Gerold Gallegos and Deborah Campbell as Class Representatives; and to appoint the law firms of Ritchie, Dillard, Davies & Johnson, P.C and Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP as Class Counsel. Westgate is an American timeshare resort company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2L86rG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark P. Chalos, Esq. Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq. Christopher Coleman, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 313-9000 E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com kbyrd@lchb.com ccoleman@lchb.com - and - Wayne A. Ritchie II, Esq. RITCHIE, JOHNSON & STOVALL, P.C. 606 W. Main Street, Suite 300 Knoxville, TN 37901-1126 Telephone: (865) 637-0661 E-mail: war@rjs.com - and - John O. Belcher, Esq. BELCHER SYKES HARRINGTON, PLLC 320 Seven Springs Way, Suite 110 Brentwood, TN 37027 Telephone: (615) 810-8777 E-mail: jbelcher@bshlawyers.com WESTJET AIRLINES: Yee Files Suit in S.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westjet Airlines LTD. The case is styled as Irene Yee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Westjet Airlines LTD., Case No. 3:25-cv-02982-WQH-BJW (S.D. Cal., Nov. 3, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. WestJet -- https://www.westjet.com/en-us -- is a Canadian airline headquartered in Calgary, Alberta.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jae Kook Kim, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 117 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91105 Phone: (626) 550-1250 Fax: (619) 756-6991 Email: ekim@lcllp.com WESTROCK LONGVIEW: Wooten Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Nathan Wooten, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WESTROCK LONGVIEW, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Case No. 25-2-01073-08 was removed from the Superior Court of Washington at Cowlitz County, to the United States District Court for Western District of Washington on Oct. 31, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05973. The Complaint purports to seek relief from Defendant related to Washington law, specifically under Washington Administrative Code ("WAC"), Washington Labor Regulations, and the Revised Code of Washington ("RCW"). The Complaint alleges: failure to provide rest breaks; failure to provide meal breaks; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay all wages due; failure to accrue and allow use of paid sick leave; unlawful deductions and rebates; failure to pay all wages due at termination; and willful refusal to pay wages.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Clarence M. Belnavis, Esq. Catharine M. Morisset, Esq. Meghan McNabb, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 682-2308 Fax: (206) 682-7907 Email: cbelnavis@fisherphillips.com cmoriset@fisherphillips.com mmcnabb@fisherphillips.com WHEELINGS BAR: O'Donnell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- William O'Donnell, and all others similarly situated v. WHEELINGS BAR, LLC d/b/a BEEHIVE, Case No. 1:25-cv-13241 (D. Mass., Nov. 3, 2025), is brought arising from Defendant's failure to make its website, www.lovemelty.com (the "Website") accessible to legally blind individuals, which violates the effective communication and equal access requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), The Defendant fails to communicate effectively with Plaintiff because its digital properties are not properly formatted to allow legally blind users such as content. Accordingly, legally blind customers such as Plaintiff are Plaintiff to access its digital deprived from accessing information about Defendant's products and using its online services, all of which are readily available to sighted customers. Because Defendant's website is not and has never been fully accessible, and because upon information and belief Defendant does not have, and has never had, adequate corporate policies that are reasonably calculated to cause its website to become and remain accessible, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant specializes in rustic comfort food and provides restaurant services, including reservations, private events, and information about upcoming happenings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Ohrenberger, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (844) 731-3343 Email: mohrenberger@ealg.law WHITTAKER FORD: Lagrand Files TCPA Suit in W.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whittaker Ford, Inc. The case is styled as Terri Lagrand, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Whittaker Ford, Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-06627 (W.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Whittaker Ford, Inc. -- https://www.whittakerford.com/ -- is a ford dealer in Williamson, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 N.E. 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Fair Lending Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Wintrust Financial Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it continues to defend the Fair Lending lawsuit filed by a customer. On May 25, 2022, a Wintrust Mortgage customer filed a putative class action and asserted individual claims against Wintrust Mortgage and Wintrust Financial Corporation in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiff alleges that Wintrust Mortgage discriminated against black/African American borrowers and brings class claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Sections 1981 and 1982 under Chapter 42 of the United States Code; and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Plaintiff also asserts individual claims under theories of promissory estoppel, fraudulent inducement, and breach of contract. On September 23, 2022, Wintrust filed a motion to dismiss the entire suit and the court granted that motion to dismiss on September 27, 2023 and gave Plaintiff until October 20, 2023 to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint. Wintrust moved to dismiss the amended complaint on November 21, 2023. Wintrust vigorously disputes these allegations, and Wintrust otherwise lacks sufficient information to estimate the amount of any potential liability. [] CEO J.J. Thomas Assumes Class Action Capital's Chair of Board ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo News reports that Class Action Capital, a leading litigation claims asset management firm headquartered in New York City and originally founded at the Innovation Depot in Birmingham, AL, on November 13 announced a leadership transition. Founder and CEO J.J. Thomas will assume the role of Chair of the Board of Directors, while Andrew Mirabile will be promoted to Chief Executive Officer and Max Johnson, currently Vice President of Strategy & Operations, will become Chief Operating Officer. Thomas, who founded the company in 2012, will work closely with Mirabile and Johnson on Class Action Capital's continued growth and long-term strategic direction, while stepping back from day-to-day management. "Founding Class Action Capital and helping lead it from an idea into an industry leader has been one of the great privileges of my career," said Thomas. "As I reflect on the last 13 years, I'm filled with gratitude for our team, our clients, and the mission that's driven us since day one. In transitioning away from CEO, I do so with deep pride in what we've achieved and total confidence in the team leading us forward. The company's best days are still ahead." The leadership transition reflects the company's evolution and ongoing growth trajectory. "At the core of our success is a commitment to listening to the evolving needs of our clients and developing solutions thoughtfully designed around those priorities," said Mirabile. "This client-first philosophy continues to guide every aspect of our strategy and execution. Under Max Johnson's leadership as COO, our team will remain dedicated to operational excellence -- delivering with consistency, efficiency, and a clear focus on achieving successful client outcomes." Class Action Capital is a boutique litigation claims asset management firm specializing in the research, data analysis, management, and monetization of litigation and class action claim assets for corporate clients. The company currently serves over 7,000 organizations across the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, managing and monetizing more than $1 billion in litigation assets. [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 ***